Alvaro, thank you for the comments. I'm glad that I've been able to come away from this with some good feature ideas.

I've actually got to scoot (dog walking, exercise, you know the drill) so I'll keep this short, but the idea of a centralised governing body is a very good one. To some degree this has developed naturally, for instance hard rules to the system that can't be broken, i.e. projects which don't match the site get rejected by the approval process which we do. E.g. if someone's going on there to build something for a business or investors, they're going to get rejected. There's also fixed ranges for the parameters of the settings, task contribution points etc. etc. so there's only so much flexibility in the model. I'll also have a think about how a ubiquitous cpt allocation across all projects will benefit the system as whole. At the moment I'm not entirely convinced that local bubbles of cpt "value" will lead to unfairness. But I'll have a think. The idea of templates is something that could work either way, providing a structure and a foundation for projects to understand the value of contributions, rather than leaving it at an arbitrary 1 unit of time = 1 cpt.

For any project, contributor or owner having problems, there's a dedicated panic button that automatically invites me into a chat - albeit under a different, support focussed account named "Gandalf" - where I can mediate any issues, bring about a verdict or just help out with understanding different features. So while it's not a system that acts as a central, governing body, I can if need be act as one myself and enforce a particular course of action if the project needs it desperately.

As per your suggestion I'll also work on making the message clearer, that it's not a platform for accessing the labour market and is for technicals primarily. I'll also certainly look into better voting models, it's without doubt that any voting system can be exploited. It might be a case of reacting as we go or completely redefining the system.

Anyway, I really do appreciate the feedback.
Mike

Thank you so much for the detailed response. It makes me so happy to hear that you're so up for a discussion and aren't ready to just right it off without a giving it (and me) a chance.

Let me first address your questions on the practical features of the site which contribute to making it a fair workplace. And then maybe if I can allay some of those concerns, I can talk about why I genuinely believe it can create a change in the industry even though I know all too well the exploitation of workforce by the largest and most powerful in the industry. I've spent years coming up with solutions to the problems you're thinking about, so even though it may seem like the site has tonnes of flaws, it's my job now to show you that I've likely had the same issues with it as you and have come up with some way of tackling it.

So first things first.

Simply put, we advise creators to come up with a system for allocating cpts. The default suggestion is one hour of work equates to 1cpt, irrespective of what that hour was doing. Creators and task editors can come up with any scale they like, as long as it remains consistent across all positions and throughout the life of the project

Actual commits bear no relevance to the system. Everything is done through project tasks. Tasks are created based on position and have a cpt associated with them. Anyone in that position can accept it (provided they've not undertaken too many tasks) and anyone in the project with a threshold level of cpts can create new ones. Should a task be completed, under certain circumstances it can go into review in which case it can be voted on by anyone in the project over a certain threshold of c.pts (not the same threshold as task management, though all thresholds can be changed by project owners). So simply put, I've built projects in such a way that they're autonomous. They can't easily be hijacked by random people but likewise there can't be a dictatorship by the project owner. The balance of power of course, was the largest thing I had to solve. Also this might also begin to draw a bigger picture of how it'll be hard for venture capitalists or work exploiters to take advantage of the system. The whole site involves a two way relationship throughout. Both sides have to realise that this system is only going to work for them if they don't try to rip each other off. That's quite literally the only way projects on CSio won't fall into mayhem.

Which brings me on to the last point of the mechanics. We're providing a store for our users + selling tools to sell on their own sites & third party retailers (though the technical side of that is a little off implementation). All the money gets distributed straight away to all the contributors. If the project creator hasn't pulled their weight (or anyone for that matter) then they're going to earn less than those who've dedicated lots of time. That's the mentality we want people to have. And sure there are going to be issues internally; what if the project creator feels like the project is being swept away from under him and gets jealous/spiteful? What if the project creator is a bit of a tool and annoys all his contributors? These are people problems, and people problems can't be solved. Lastly this also begins to tackle the issue of requiring money to be seen in the market. Something a bit like watch itch.io does for games, by providing them a store and tools to advertise themselves without fighting head on with the largest stores with the largest marketing budgets. We're creating our own ecosystem where money is not necessary and - if we stay true to our values - never will be.

Now, onto some more issues with projects as an organisational entity. I'm hoping some of your concerns have already been addressed by the above, but let me add further info. You talk about the notion that idea-people have some desire to maintain the power of their projects or that they have a desire to exploit work because they don't have knowledge. Well the simple solution is, those kind of people don't have a space on this site one bit. This site is for technicals to use their technical ability to build commercial projects that on their own they wouldn't have been able to build - and obviously couldn't use open source for. That's what I mean when I say, 'without quitting your job', 'without going to investors'. My target audience are people who might use kickstarter, but are building a digital product, are technicals and don't want to get involved with the financing - hence why I describe it as a cross between open source and crowd funding. A commercial product built with a collaborative mentality. It might be considered niche, but people like yourself are exactly the kind of person I'm targeting. Developers who are tired of the industry and the exploitation that's going on but still want to realise their ideas. The marketing expert who I've got 30 hours with as part of the grant, has me working on this. He want's me to explain to people why I've set up this site and not what it does, as he thinks that's far more compelling - not that I managed to achieve that with my anonymous post haha. Whether or not CSio turns out to be the solution to the problem, there is definitely a solution needed to resolve the issues in our current industry.

I really wish I was one of those people, but I'm not. I'm posting and messaging several times a day and I've only got two big hits. This, which seems to have been luck (an editor looks to have seen it and done some research himself); and a reddit post which took off. Do you know how many I did that got 0 upvotes? Probably about 3, because I hate posting on social media, though it's something I'm working on. In fact the marketing expert has got me working on this too because it was clear to him that I was doing everything in my power to avoid social media and what I call 'hey, look at me' marketing - which is 99% of marketing.

No I'm not, but if I can convince enough people that they don't have to go to VCs, don't have to be multi-millionaires or the next Steve Jobs, and that sharing the proceeds of your sales with your teammates improves loyalty, commitment and quality of work - then maybe in our small corner of the internet, the world could be different. Then again it could flop, be grossly exploited or otherwise tainted and it all collapses. Only time will tell. I've certainly had enough experience in the industry, I'm certainly sceptical of the current exploitative industry, and I certainly believe this system (as always, with a bit of work) is the solution.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I entirely tackled everything head on, but let me know if there are still fears that haven't been addressed or if there are flaws I've not discussed.

Mike

Hi,

I created the site. Just wanted to clarify, that unlike with real startups, you'll be getting a share of the profits of all sales. They're split up based off of contribution and distributed in the same way to all members of the project, whether they're a contributor or the creator of a project. That's quite literally the entire point of the site! I don't know if it's the wording of the article or the site, but I definitely need to clear this up. Seems like it's been misinterpreted a little.

Hi,

I'm the creator of the site. I'm guessing from your comment that it's not clear that contributors get paid. Just wanted to clarify that the profits are distributed based off of contribution whether they're the creator of a project or a contributor. Better yet, everyone's contribution is valued at the same level so irrespective of what you're contributing with your time, the money you earn for that "unit" of time will be the same as everyone else. It's essentially a rev-share model weighted by contribution.

Hope this clears stuff up.

Hi, I'm the creator of the site, and submitted the original anonymous article to slashdot. You've got some fascinating ideas, and I love your cynicism. I just wanted to correct some things. The contribution points are distributed to all members of a project, including the creator and all the profits are distributed to every member of the project based of the weight of their C.pts, not "this warm feeling of having helped the aforementioned two groups of people to get money from virtually anything". The second is "I guess that they will be spending the money given by some VC (most likely, already used for the promotion so far), various $ millions probably". I've spent £600 so far to get the branding done and the rest has been built by myself in my spare time. I managed to get a grant from the government, but I don't see a penny, I get 40 hours of advice from experts (been really helpful so far). I've actively denied going to financing experts as getting an investment would go against absolutely everything the site holds itself to. I know it may take some convincing, and it's impossible for me to ask any one to trust that I built this on very strong political & economic principles, but this site is absolutely not designed to take people's money/time and give it to other people. It's actually the complete opposite. People will only be paid if they contribute something tangible to the project. So managers and directors who get a large share of something for just managing will find they have a reduced earning potential here. Everyone who contributes an hour of their time, whether they're the creator or a contributor or whatever, will earn the same amount for that hour of time. Anyway, if people want to know any more or have their suspicions, please feel free to chat to me about it.https://developers.slashdot.org/story/17/08/27/0639253/a-new-non-money-oriented-crowdsourcing-platform-based-on-code-contributions#