I would like the board to have a vote as to whether we should hire full-time developers. If the board doesn't feel this is the right course of action, I would like to know why.
Ron did have a proposal that for those who seek security, they can be paid a salary and either they'd be entirely unincluded from bounties or their salary amount would be deducted before the award (which makes more sense)
At the same time, these are my reservations:
1. It is favoritism. Every should have the same chance at the same prizes, disregard any previous history or expertise.
2. This favoritism places later contestants at a greater disadvantage than they already are. Aside from having to play catch up already, they now have to compete against those that don't have to work their day jobs through Mastercoin salaries, for a smaller portion of the pot that has already had slices allocated away for such salaries.
3. What do you think is more effective? Paying someone(s) a salary so they may forget their other financial obligations and focus full time, or placing a large enough bounty with good enough directions so that anyone can begin developing as they see fit, work together as they see fit, and quitting their jobs as they see fit? I lean towards the latter.
Let me first make a general comment, and then I will address each of your reservations individually. The question isn't whether there are some virtues to a bounty system that will be lost by hiring full-time employees, but whether on the whole having full-time employees is better than having exclusively bounties. I don't see why we can't have a mix of bounties and full-time employees. It seems to me that if the full-time employees act in concert, then they could decide, with the approval of the board, what specifically . I can't emphasize enough that we have millions of dollars at our disposal, and we ought to use it intelligently and effectively.
Regarding (1): It seems a little misleading to call hiring full-time developers "favoritism". Full-time employees don't play the same role in a project as developers who work for bounties. Again, why can't there be a mix of bounty-employees and full-time employees? The idea that previous experience should always and unequivocally be irrelevant is untenable, and in any case it shouldn't be maintained if it hurts the project.
Regarding (2): Not to sound insensitive, but the development of the Mastercoin project is the essential thing, not whether some potential developer is at a disadvantage. Of course, innovation may suffer somewhat by putting anyone at a disadvantage, but innovation may suffer much, much more if it is no one's *job* to work on Mastercoin full-time.
Regarding (3): The problem is that you're forming an dichotomy where there isn't one. Some tasks will be better as bounties, and some tasks will require the full attention of developers over a long period of time.
In short, it's not either or; I see the opportunity for a combination of different kinds of developers which, in my view, will lead to a quicker and more fruitful development of the Mastercoin protocol.
3. More open discussion and exchange of ideas! Keep this going gentlemen, it is refreshing to have each other to bounce ideas off of.
I appreciate your interest in discussion. Unfortunately you seem to be the only board member who is willing to seriously engage in such important policy discussions.
On that note, I think it is important that the board members explicitly answer rbdrbd's question: "Do we have anyone on the board that has "boot on the ground" operational experience growing profitable software/tech startups with more than 5-10 employees?"