> About reaching consensus on estimation I suggest a practical approach.
> There should be at least three developers who make an estimation. A
> core member has the final decision if no consensus can be reached. The
> payment for the feature/user-story is hourly tariff x story-points x
> factor. The factor should represent the average hours for a story-
> point (and is a standard factor for all assignments in the co-op).
> Any member knows at that moment how much he/she gets paid for
> submitting the feature and it is his or her risk if there is an
> overshoot (or extra profit in case of an undershoot).
This seems reasonable to me as well.
> I would welcome front-end developers as members, but they can't submit
> their contribution the same way as a developer. At least not the basis
> of a user-story/feature. So it would make things more complicated.
We have to find a different way of doing that. User-stories are a bit
useless here, and I think it wouldn't be a good idea to split the HTML
part between more front-end developers.
But the ability as a co-op to offer the templating part (and maybe even
interaction design) might be valuable for potential clients. WDYT?
> No-one is obliged to share Ruby jobs. (I think it is not about 'jobs'
> but about assignments or projects.) Every member should have enough
> incentive to deliver leads to the co-op. If a lead becomes a real
> assignment, then I propose the member should receive 5 percent of the
> revenue generated by the assignment in the first year.
> My hope is of course that the Ruby co-op will be such a way of working
> together that one wouldn't want to do his or her own assignments
> outside the co-op. Otherwise the co-op wouldn't reach enough 'critical
> mass' in work/assignments/revenue in proportion to its number of
Sure, I think it's important to share assignments. But, members might
have differnet reasons not to do so, eg:
1.) To have and keep the Dutch VAR-WUO you need to have to bill at least
3 different clients. I suppose the co-op bills the client and a member
bills the co-op? That means you need to do at least 2 jobs out of the co-op.
2.) If you're short on jobs, it might be tempting not to share...
3.) Some jobs are simply not shareable, eg if you get hired in-house.
Maybe we can build something in related to availability, e.g. being
available for at least X hours a year... Or being availble in weekly
Not sure what will be good here myself... WDYT?