On Wed, May 4, 2016 1:45 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide [email protected] wrote: Ian Clarke writes:> Well, one important component of the allocation process is to start with an even
> allocation of points between all tasks, Did I overlook that in the description? Yes you did, from my proposal: For the next stage, every participant gets 1000 units of “value” to allocate between the different tasks, starting from an equal distribution of units between the tasks . Even if we buy things, we still need time to integrate them. And as an example why I think that money isn’t useful here: $600 sound like much, but when we’re thinking about paying people, that’s less than half a person-week. This is very much not an obvious correlation, though. I don't agree, I think thinking about people's time in terms of money is the right way to think about it, and more people should think about it that way. Otherwise it is too easy to undervalue time. This is why so many companies waste so much time on pointless meetings involving way too many people. I even have a friend that created a Chrome extension for Google Calendar that showed the cost of every meeting scheduled in terms of the hourly costs of those involved. It's a very useful way to discourage pointless meetings. People's time is valuable, thinking about it as currency rather than just time helps to remind people of that, while also providing a common frame of reference for a variety of tasks. > However, I > don't agree that if a task is less than a week's work that we should > automatically do it, we might have $25k worth of tasks like that! This is not what I said: I said that if the task is less than a week of work, it’s too small to merit discussing it. Volunteer time is too valuable for that. It is what you said, from your previous email: If it can be done in less than a week, we should just do it right away instead of discussing how much time it requires. > This wasn't just a description of the method, it was an argument in favor of > using the method, and some background on how I came up with the method. > A simple description of the method would be much shorter. Good :)We’ll need > such a description before we can actually use the method. I believe I address this in the last sentence of my proposal: I have further ideas on which online tools we can use to implement this, I’m thinking Google Docs, but let’s agree on the principles before we get too much into the mechanism. Ian. Ian Clarke Founder, The Freenet Project Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
