Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 16, 2022. It is now read-only.

publish second article on OpenSource.com #683

Closed
chadwhitacre opened this issue Jun 20, 2016 · 51 comments
Closed

publish second article on OpenSource.com #683

chadwhitacre opened this issue Jun 20, 2016 · 51 comments

Comments

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor

chadwhitacre commented Jun 20, 2016

Follow-on from #551. Ping @semioticrobotic.

Drafts
  1. Part 2
  2. Part 2
  3. on Google Docs
@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

chadwhitacre commented Jun 20, 2016

Dug up the IRC announcement for the switch to take-what-you-want (gratipay/gratipay.com#1073):

https://botbot.me/freenode/gratipay/2013-06-27/?msg=4128376&page=4

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actively working on a draft here: https://medium.com/@whit537/308ffbfdf15d

Part 1: https://opensource.com/open-organization/16/5/employees-let-them-hire-themselves

The main serendipity for part 2 is that I've learned about a lot of other organizations already doing so-called "self-set salaries." I think I had sort of convinced myself that I thought up the idea myself after failing with a rankings-based system. Now I admit to myself and yinz that I got the idea from Maverick, a book which @pjz gave me back in 2013, when we were first iterating teams. At #314 and #464 I heard that Reinventing Organizations gives examples of self-set salaries—Semco, yes, but also Morning Star and one or two others (I bought that book, and just reordered Maverick).

So the story here is less "Check out what we invented/discovered" and more "Here's Gratipay's take on self-set salaries."

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Alright, draft 1: https://medium.com/@whit537/part-2-308ffbfdf15d.

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

Love the draft, @whit537. I think it's shaping up nicely. Especially valuable is the section on "tensions"—those moments in which the program seemed to strain or sputter—and the concrete action you undertook to address these moments. I see you're planning to build on those bits, and I applaud that. Happy to keep looking as it continues to take shape.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

@semioticrobotic Can we aim to publish on July 19th? I can aim to deliver a second draft next Monday, the 11th, giving us a week for final edits. Does that work for you?

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

Yes, @whit537. We can absolutely do that. Looking forward to seeing the next draft.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

@semioticrobotic Awesome, thanks. Here's the second draft—just copied/pasted from the first for now. I'll drop you a line when it's ready for review! :-)

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like I'm not gonna get to this today. I'll try again tomorrow!

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

No worries, @whit537! We'll catch up tomorrow.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, @semioticrobotic! Here's a second draft! Looks like it's weighing in at 1,800+ words, so we'll have to see what we can trim. Let me know if you think we can get this down, or if we should split out a third part!

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

Looking at this now, @whit537. Heads up: It' easier and preferable for me to edit in a word processor, so I am plunking the text in there and doing the work that way.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds good, @semioticrobotic. Besides being too long, I'm not satisfied that the conclusion is punchy enough. Interested to see your take.

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

semioticrobotic commented Jul 13, 2016

This is awesome, @whit537. Yes, it's longer than some of the stories we typically run on Opensource.com, but it's just chock full of insights, including a well-balanced bit of background that really sets the stage for the experiment and provides offshoots for folks looking to dig deeper. On top of that, it's pretty tightly written, so I don't see much we can cut without damaging the integrity of the piece.

I did edit a few things for style, readability and (a little for) length. Per your request, I also toyed with the ending a bit.

Looks like I'm not allowed to upload my ODT file (sorry about that), so I hope a DOCX will suffice. Let me know what you think of the changes.
gratipay_twyw.docx

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @semioticrobotic! I've thrown the DOCX into a Google Doc for easier sharing. Reviewing your changes now ...

P.S. I've also emailed support@github.com to ask for ODT file attachment support. :)

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

his or her

I think we should use the singular "their," to avoid unnecessarily excluding folks who use other pronouns.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

We need to update all the links to remove the Medium redirects.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @SimonSarazin, do you have the screenshot of the take-what-you-want listing for Gittip back in the day? The one you used during the session in Lille? (And did I ask you this already somewhere else? :) Mind sharing that here so we can consider including it in this article for OpenSource.com? I think it really helps to give people a concrete picture of what the system looked like—a 🎨 is worth a thousand 📝 ! :)

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

I think we should use the singular "their," to avoid unnecessarily excluding folks who use other pronouns.

I'm on board with that!

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

@semioticrobotic I'm actively revising in Google Docs. I haven't used that much before—I think it'll give us a nice editing history.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm experimenting with their commenting features a bit as well, not sure yet what the best usage pattern for us will be ...

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've made a pass through everything but the conclusion, hoping to return to that after lunch.

The biggest structural change I made was moving the first paragraph under "Stress testing" up into the previous "Take-what-you-want in practice" section, and the two-item list of abuse prevention measures down into a new intro under "Stress testing". My thinking is that "Twyw in practice" is now about the system's normal operation, and "Stress testing" is about the system under load (as it were).

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Alright, finished a pass through the conclusion.

@semioticrobotic If you want I can give you permissions on this Google Doc to edit it directly. Let me know an account to invite if so.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

We need to update all the links to remove the Medium redirects.

Done.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

just flag me and point me to the version that we'll publish

I don't see a good way to refer to a snapshot of a Google Doc, so here's the basic link again (also added to the description on this ticket):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EGHLGRGnbs6ppsUd91EGpNMivcq5koWF857HCRJt8iI/edit?usp=sharing

I suspect I'll revisit this again tomorrow morning, but I don't expect to make any more big changes. :)

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like I'm not allowed to upload my ODT file

Here's what I heard back from GitHub support:

I can certainly add your request for ODT files to be added to list of supported file types.

I can't promise if or when we would implement but as a workaround you could add your file to a ZIP and upload the ZIP.

Hope this helps and please let me know if you need anything else!

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

Great! Thanks, all. Just a note that I've pulled the version currently in GDocs and am working with that as the canonical version.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

chadwhitacre commented Jul 18, 2016

@semioticrobotic Thanks for getting the post proofed and ready to go! I read through it [NB: link received in private email] and made two changes, hopefully non-controversial:

  • I corrected one obvious error: "MorningStar" to "Morning Star" in the second instance.
  • I split the sentence beginning, "If you'd like to dig deeper," out into its own paragraph, as a compromise between attaching it to the last paragraph (original) and second-to-last paragraph (proofed).

Last request: Can we change the title? I'm not comfortable changing it without your permission, but it is currently:

  • Does 'take-what-you-want' work for employee compensation?

This runs us afoul of Betteridge's law of headlines, wherein the answer to yes-no questions in headlines is assumed to be "no." How about one of these instead?

  • 3 lessons from a 2-year 'take-what-you-want' experiment
  • How Gratipay solved money & motivation in open source
  • Mixing open source and money with 'take-what-you-want'

This last might be the strongest, because it echoes DHH's "The perils of mixing open source and money." DHH painted a dire picture, and we are giving a concrete counter-example.

Thoughts?

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

@whit537 Our content manager has final say on all headline decisions, but I will certainly send these suggestions to her and see what we can do. If anything, we'll riff off them to generate something more appropriate than what we have there now. Thanks for catching and fixing those typos.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds good, thanks @semioticrobotic.

P.S. She doesn't by chance have a GitHub account, does she? 😁

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

She doesn't by chance have a GitHub account, does she?

I don't believe so, but I'll check!

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

She'd be welcome to join us here! :)

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

This last might be the strongest, because it echoes DHH

On the other hand, we may decide it's better to avoid casting this too strongly as a direct response to DHH's post. We reference his post, but I think ours stands on its own.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually, now that I check I see it's been changed to "3 lessons from Gratipay's take-what-you-want compensation experiment," so I guess we're good! Thanks @semioticrobotic! :-)

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

Woo hoo! Great job, @whit537. We're promoting via all our usual channels today.

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

@whit537 Yes, for sure. Looks like you beat me to it. Great idea (one I should have thought of before publication).

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like you beat me to it.

Hmm ... I'm seeing the second article under "Related Content" at the bottom, but I was thinking of something like an "Update:" after the "Stay tuned for Part 2!" (or maybe just link "Part 2"?). Are you seeing a link somewhere else that I'm not noticing?

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

@whit537 Ah! I mis-read your original message. Had the logic reversed. I'll get on that right away.

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Failed to reach the top ten, as before.

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

The editorial team included this story in our weekly newsletter, sent to more than 100,000 subscribers. I suspect that'll get more than a few extra eyes on it!

@chadwhitacre
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you! 🙇 I actually noticed that in my email right before seeing the notification about your message here, and thought "Huh ... that's cool." :-)

screen shot 2016-07-27 at 9 08 56 am

@semioticrobotic
Copy link

~200 more people read the story yesterday!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants