Re: Bounty Server, Revisited.

[Ian Grigg <iang@systemics.com>]

Hi, Snow,

>      I have started drafting a proposal statement for the Bounty server. 

Wow, you've gotta move fast in this game :))

> Bounty Server, The proposal:
> Version 0.1
> 
> Abstract:
[chop where agreed or not disagreed]

> Background:
>      It is the "Copylefted" software that interests me at this point.

OK, although for my model, I am assuming that all forms are covered.

> The proposal:
> 
>     What I am going to attempt to do is to set up a "Bounty Server" where 
>     someone can iniate a "bounty" on a peice of technology. The initator
>     will write up a set of specifications for the technology, and an initial 
>     award to be paid to the developer. They then post it on the server and 
>     send their initial "bid" to the organization.  

Separate this out, for clarity of model.  The initiator (I used
Proposer, and called her Alice coz Alice always initiates) proposes
the specification, or task.  There is no need for Alice to submit an
initial bid, although they have that option, as a buyer.

BTW, bid to do what?  Using market terminology, I have assumed thay
bid is to buy, that is provide cash.  Offer is to sell, that is provide
software.  Ah, yes, bid is add to bounty.

>     This is the "bounty". Other people can add to this bounty, allowing the 
>     totals to add until someone claims that bounty by providing proof of 
>     development to the initiator of the bounty. In software terms they would 
>     upload the software to the server and notify the originator of the bounty,
>     and the server operators. Other technology will be figured out as it 
>     becomes necessary.

This is where I have put most of my efforts, because I need to design the
microstructure that is built into our market.

>     Originally I was going to put the stipulation in that the software written
>     must be Copylefted. I decided that that wasn't really necessary, but 
>     rather simply desired. To aid in that desire, I am going to build in 
>     an initative to releaseing the software "copylefted".

Absolutely - let the market decide.  Some of us, for example, do not like
copyleft.

> To get more specific: 
  [chop]
>     The first developer to upload a _working_ package to the server will 
>     be awarded the total bounty, ...

This worries me.  If I, as a junior programmer, am looking to enter the
market, I will have the daunting task of beating everyone else.  Real life
doesn't work that way - there are ways in which I can pick up some newbie
tasks for low money, so as to build up experience and/or reputation.

I guess the notion of bounty is just that - first one takes all.
However, I think that the solution might be a bit limited in the
long run.

Interesting in that my proposal leads to task distribution by awarding
contracts, your proposal leads to task incentives by rewarding speed.

>     "First" will be soley determined by the time stamp of the server. As soon
>     as the package is uploaded, the initiator and the server adminstrator 
>     will be notifed, and the bounty marked "claimed". If the package is 
>     accepted by the initiator, the bounty will be marked "closed", the 
>     package moved to an FTP site for distribution (if Copylefted) or 
>     moved offline if not (archived copies will be kept for legal reasons--
>     more on that later). At that point a check for the developer will 
>     be cut (or ecash mailed if that works out).   

OK, my proposals specifically assume no need for a "decision" by Alice.
That's not to say either is right, it's just that I prefer to design
something that eliminates the individual decision rather than cope
with the complexities.  I believe it will result, in the end, in a
more efficient market.

>     The Server Adminstrator will also do an cursory check to make sure that
>     there are no obvious copyright violations. 
> 
>     In the event that there is a conflict between the initiator and the 
>     developer, the claim will go into adjudication. The server adminstrators
>     decesion is final, and he will make every effort to settle the claim
>     fairly. Adjudication will incur an additional fee (see the fees section). 

Same as above, no adjudication in my system.
Although, it is possible to add underwriters,
by simply making the task offerers (Bob and Carol)
into bond writers who front for programmers.

> Status:
> 
>     At this point in time I am (obviously) still in the process of developing 
>     the procedures. I have registered a Domain Name (bounty.org) and I have 
>     a couple promises off assistance in certain areas. As well, I have 
>     a server to start off with.  

Wow, *gotta* move fast.  As I say, our stuff is based on a lot of
pre-existing software, so we make a lot of assumptions.  Given our
different approaches we may end up with competing systems rather
than one, but that's fine, indeed highly valuable as an experimental
approach.

What's financing you in this?  Or should I say, monetarily enthusing?

I have started writing (last night :)) this all up as a paper for
presentation to FC97.  If you want, we could collaborate, or I will
just document your efforts, and concentrate on presenting mine.

My efforts are now at
    http://www.systemics.com/docs/papers/task_market.html

TTFN
iang.