Re: Work or Pay Systems
From: John Faust (
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Maybe it is easier to spend a lot of time identifying the set of community
tasks that need to be done instead working in hours that need to be
uniformly distributed over the members. With this task list, more time (and
money) could be spent getting professionals to come in and tell you how much
it would cost to do those tasks. The reason I say "and money" is because it
isn't fair to get bids from professional contractors when there is no
intention of hiring any of them doing the bidding. Besides, if you are clear
with them up front and pay for their estimates, they might give what you
really need: a detailed breakdown of the tasks and what each costs.

Once you have those task details, then you don't have to rely on
hours-reporting--each task has a value. Someone either does the task
(adequately) or they don't. The tasks can be rotated if necessary to allow
everyone the opportunity to do the high-value, low-hour tasks if they can do
them. Members would sign up for all the tasks they are willing and able to
do. All of those wanting to do Task A will get a chance to do it. Honesty in
reporting hours becomes irrelevant. To make sure everyone can do their fair
share, some of the tasks (e.g., sweeping walkways, raking leaves, cleaning
up the parking areas, inspecting facilities) can be divided into some number
of identical tasks.

Adequacy can be measured in terms of complaints. A complaint wouldn't be
relevant until the task deadline has passed. After that, a complaint is
relevant. If a member accumulates too many complaints (from other than sworn
enemies) then some kind of correction needs to be applied. Some tasks might
not be visible (e.g., inspections). Those would require reports and
checklists. At some point, trust will have to play a role.

In any case, dealing at the task level takes tracking hours (honestly or
otherwise) out of the equation.

John Faust

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.