That’s fair, but I think asking for payment before you actually show you are able to do something is not very good practice.
It’s not a bill, it’s a proposal.. people can choose to do as they wish, but no I don’t think my past work should not be considered. I’ve covered this quite a bit in the post above as why. And I have stated now a few times how long I’m committed to do this work as well as help to organize it to be done in a more decentralized way in the future.
I think most of the outrage is due to a false narrative being spread. I list my contributions in great detail many places, people can choose to support or not, that’s how the system works.
You already know that your proposal will pass but I wouldn't call that consensus, at least not a community consensus but a consensus between the big stakeholders.
I don't have any doubt that you did a good job but the amount that you're asking for is excessive for many of us. A lot of people won't complaint about it because they're afraid of express an opinion against those who are way more powerful than them.
If you would simply reformulate your proposal I grant you that not only you would have the support of those whales but the gratitude of all the community.
Think it carefully because by perseverating on this you could harm more than you helped to the proyect. Having in count to all instead of a few, you could have your real consensus and the next time that you make a proposal probably (after looking to your works merits) they would approve without problems even a bigger salary for you.
So imho, you're commiting a big mistake here.
DPoS consensus, thus how the platform you are on is designed. I would say that no not every proposal will have full community consensus, but hey neither does every post. If every post and therefore every payout had to be approved by the large majority of the community, I assume authors rewards would look quite different. But alas, that’s how the system is designed.
As far as revising, I would love to hear ideas on how to do such. I break down the hourly wage in another comment as well as describe how “showing work” is difficult in this regard but am working on ways to improve it.
I think the idea that I’m doing harm is a bit odd, but would most definitely love to hear tips on how to improve.
Yes I know how works this blockchain, that doesn't mean is the ideal though. The ideal would be obtain as much consensus is possible, is not too much to ask to calm down the waters instead of having a lot of people pissed off with this.
Easy peasy ask your voters to retire the votes and add a new one, this solution is obvious I don't know how you aren't aware of this.
It isn't odd, divide a community is harm it. Here is an essay that says "you will win but you won't convince" instead of trying to win you should be trying to convince us all (the more people the better you don't need the 100% logically).
Again, I would support your proposal and I bet that all who are complaining about it as well. I admire the tenacity, that speaks well of you but don't confuse it with stubborness.
And what would this new one involve that would apparently “unite” the community rather than “divide” it?
What’s the solution there that you feel is so obvious and want to support so fully?
I didn't mention it? sorry thought it was also obvious . The salary and the targets especified, maybe the duration of the contract. That's what most of people were claiming. Neoxian and other users pointed out very clearly.
I won't tell you how much is the reasonable amount nor the targets of the proposal, I think that you could talk with those who have more weight than me for that specific terms. 500/day sbd seems too much, you are good negotiating, that's part of your work also, do it and convince Justine, don't try to win.
You're clever enough to figure out what you should do, I bet that you know it already but since you know you can win this proposal probably you won't take my advice. Fair enough I'm nobody to tell you what you have to do, of course.
Neoxian asked for more information in that regard and I gave it. Are you saying the proposal should be updated with that information as well or that it should be revised?
As that’s where my confusion is coming from, you are suggesting I clarify things I already have. So I am asking if you are suggesting something else, so I can attempt to do what I can to solve any issue had.
So here is where I broke down this aspects for him.
https://hive.blog/hive/@justineh/q9xd8a
So were you asking for the same? Asking for me to add that to the proposal itself? Or saying a complete revision needs to be done?
If I have to clarify you this then I want part of your salary for couching.
@justineh
The "past" work aspect of your proposal would be your sticking point for passing your proposal on your ongoing future work.Also the hypothetical of "asking for payment before you actually show you are able to do something is not very good practice" is not reprehensible as compared to asking for payment after the fact.
I know it is not a bill; the point of that analogy was to convey an emotion that your proposal can induce. If you understand that then you'll be able to better maneuver this situation.
Your last statement is not the best PR on this, if you care about such things.
I would prefer to feel in a strong position to support you in this. Hence bringing the points up that makes it feel hard for me to do so.
There is a win/win/win here were you get funding and the community is happy about it instead of tore over it, but itll be up to you to get it there or not in the end. I feel that if you stick hard to this proposal as is, then it will cost you more in the long run in terms of the community that would support your proposal under the proper terms, but not as is now.
@justineh "people can choose to support or not" doesnt come off right to me from you given what I have seen of you out in about on discord and such; it feels disappointing somehow. A lot of people look to you as a representative of Hive and of them as community members. Personally, Id would have guessed if you received backlash that you would work with the community, but would not take on the "people can choose to support or not" mentality as such in the circumstances.
@rubencress you can read my comments in this thread for more of what I see in the circumstances.
I'm open to discussion if that's what you want. Could you try to approach your issues more objectively and less subjective? It's normal to share what is important to you, I respect that, but it helps to know that not everyone shares the same opinion. It would make it easier to get to the core of your issues.
But based upon what I just read from your comments;
What you're sharing is simply a dead-end, leaving very little room for discussion or a solution as one issue is in direct conflict with another. I'm not sure if you're aware of that, or if this is purposely intended.
You judge her for asking partial payment for her past work, right? At the same time, you want assurance that she continues her "past work" work. How would you value the continuation of that work, if you already shared your opinion that her past work is basically worth nothing? If you want to leave "past work" out of the equation, then judge the proposal with "past work" out of the equation.
For promised tasks described in the proposal, even if the outcome is not as we desired, $50HBD per hour I consider being undervalued, as it is still quite a risk since it is not a direct pay in FIAT. I'm leaving this "pay for past work" totally out when I'm measuring the amount of requested payment and judge her proposal based on her skills and previous achievements.
Which makes me think of a possible meet-in-the-middle solution; I'm not here to fill in the blanks for @Justineh, nor do I wish to talk on her behalf, but let's say, if you have a promise that says that X% of requested pay-out will remain in the platform, as well as X% of the pay-out will be extracted and exchanged for FIAT to cover expenses, would you be more sensible to support this proposal?
Also, I want to point out that the "past work" you're referring to is something that I would consider to be a USP in this case, and an additional incentive to pledge my vote.
you make it obv that there is no productive convo to be had with you without extremely unnecessary effort, so I will have to decline your offer
No hard feelings. Enjoy your evening.