hey @johnnyscript, i think what you're feeling is valid and i'm keen to hear more.

what you said in %5PwSn0K... struck a chord with me.

since i haven't shared this yet and it might be relevant, when @dominic first proposed how to handle the incoming grant money, i had a counter-proposal with %mCrjf3n...:

my proposal: we use 200k USD to provide a basic income for 10 SSBC members of 20k USD each over 1 year.

rather than focus on the specific tasks that need to be done (a bug bounty or paid ticket approach), we focus on the specific people we believe are best suited to do these tasks. for reporting, each SSBC member has a personal roadmap, and they provide updates on the roadmap as they progress.

this doesn't mean all 10 members would be able to quit their job to work on Scuttlebutt, but it would definitely empower many people here to continue the great work they're already doing, and have less stress about livelihood.

which i clarified in %Z2jYF4G...:

basically i think how we choose to distribute this money will be formative for our community culture, we have an opportunity to "practice what we preach" and distribute these resources according to our values.

personally, i think "communal basic income" is the best way to distribute resources within a community to fund sustainable work.

why?

i've found the financial model we're using in Root Systems to be very effective. i think it would apply well here. the easiest approach to re-use is a pure "communal basic income", or we could try what we do in Root Systems with an additional "day rate" for working on "approved projects".

(present note: this got confused for me proposing that the ssbc be a small high-trust team like Root Systems)

it empowers the workers to use the "advice process". if we make then funding conditional on specific outcomes, then we need a committee to decide on priority outcomes, a judge to determine whether the worker met the outcome requirements, and a boss to whip the workers into shape if they fail to meet the key performance indicators. in general, the more conditions for funding, the more management necessary.

by funding unconditionally, it shows we trust and respect the recipients of the resources to do what is best for the project. in my experience, i'm much more motivated when i am empowered to pursue what i am most passionate about, rather than fulfill a transaction. it also enables us to support more hidden labor and innovative experiments, as often the visible outcomes are only a small part of the overall work necessary to deliver value.

i think a "basic income" is a great way to support abundance thinking, since all the resources are given unconditionally in the same amount to everyone involved. if you are sick this week, you still are rewarded, because you exist and are awesome. this is in contrast to being rewarded directly based on the value you deliver, which i think promotes scarcity thinking.

it also aligns with our "cyberhobo" culture. if someone is able to live on 20k USD per year, then we are funding their entire livelihood for the year!

overall, i'd love a future where today we can support 10 members at 20k USD per year, tomorrow we support 20 members at 30k USD, the next 50 members, etc. i find this future very exciting and motivating.

anyways, what i was proposing is whatever, i took up a lot of space because i wanted to share it in full, i've found what we ended up doing has been surprisingly delightful. what i'm trying to say is that healthy dissent is really great, keep it coming!

@johnny you want us to listen to you and change the process... but why do you expect us to change for you if you arn't also prepared to change for us? collaboration is a two way street.

@dinosaur did propose a "just give people money" system, but I argued against it on the basis that i didn't want to decided who was and who wasn't quite in the in-group.

I could have also just provided a salary to a couple of people, that probably would have been a reasonable idea, maybe one that other people would have taken.

Instead we went with a system that more widely distributed a fair chance at getting a grant. (including such features as even I have to apply for a grant)

hey @emile we're not running consensus here. If anything this is more like consent or advice process.

I had a really good conversation with @noffle today about the tension between structured directed form, and emergent people doing whatever.

I only just saw this thread now. I don't mean to dig it up now if it's closed for the moment.
I've really enjoyed your contributions over the years @johnny. I hope we can talk more in the future