News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Crowd Hiring.

Re:Crowd Hiring by codingdave on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @10:41AM (#18066675)
I think most technical folk would agree that paying by the hour is inferior to paying by results. I can understand the appeal of an hour-based system such as this, but without a tie to performance, people can game the system in negative ways, while at the same time highly efficient professionals will get paid the same as slackers, which is a disincentive to their participation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowd Hiring by kemitchell on Monday October 08, 2018 @03:13PM (#18170378)
Are there good statistics on the percentage of technical people on salary or hourly, versus equity-only or piecework?

I've read a number of times that the general trend in creative work is that salaries take a far lesser morale toll than bonuses or piecework. Anecdotally, open source seems to have accepted contributors on salary far more often than piecework, like patch bounties.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowd Hiring by aabreu on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:30AM (#18067179)
Being paid per hour creates a massive conflict of interests.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowd Hiring by kemitchell on Monday October 08, 2018 @03:15PM (#18170401)
The scheme I propose doesn't actually pay per hour. There's no built-in method for time tracking or reconciliation. Rather, hours are used to roughly estimate the amount of time a developer can put in, over the funded period.

Essentially, an hours-available estimate would proxy for "full time", "half time", or "a few a week". Perhaps I should revise to give developers precisely that choice, directly.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowd Hiring by 0n34n7 on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @11:05AM (#18066891)
Senior developer agrees.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Crowd Hiring by rficcaglia on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @10:59AM (#18066824)
Yes. This.
[ Parent | on HN ]