reply on: What are you working on this week? \ stacker news ~builders

pull down to refresh

3085 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 9 Feb \ parent \ on: What are you working on this week? builders

Thanks for the nice response.

I've been putting effort into tagging issues with difficulty levels and giving pointers on what tackling the issue will entail so they can pick the right porridge bowl if they don't want to make up their own.

This is tangentially related, maybe, but I'm very intrigued, in a systems-builder type of way, in how big undertakings (like your codebase) can be rendered maximally approachable to someone. Put another way: for whatever complicated system you inhabit, how can you lower the bar as much as possible for someone else to contribute to it meaningfully?

This extends to social systems, too. I may have posted about this before, but this example from Irina Krush during the Kasparov vs the world chess extravaganza is kind of my go to for what this means. Here's an excerpt from Michael Nielsen:

Unlike her expert peers, Krush focused considerable time and attention on the World Team’s game forum. Shrugging off flames and personal insults, she worked to extract the best ideas and analysis from the forum, as well as building up a network of strong chess-playing correspondents, including some of the grandmasters now offering advice.

Simultaneously, Krush built a publicly accessible analysis tree, showing possible moves and countermoves, and containing the best arguments and refutations for different lines of play, both from the game forum, and from her correspondence with others, including the GM school. This analysis tree enabled the World Team to focus its attention much more effectively, and served as a reference point for discussion, for further analysis, and for voting.

As the game went on, Krush’s role on the World Team gradually became more and more pivotal, despite the fact that according to their relative rankings, Kasparov would ordinarily have beaten Krush easily, unless he made a major blunder.

(Some similar examples come to mind from Audrey Tang, though I don't have any ready to hand. Similar energy in her activism, though.)

I'm obsessed with this idea in the btc ecosystem, which is why I'm such a snarky bitch sometimes. What would the Irina Krush / Audrey Tang of btc look like? If you're holding a billion dollar bag, is there a relatively low-cost but super high-leverage Irina Krush-style person who could fills all those invisible cracks and bridge the bridgeless gaps? It's fun to think about. I've written about it before but am too lazy to unearth any of it.

Anyhoo, your setup for the trial made me think of it. I bet the work you're doing now will add a ton of value outside of the value it adds in helping you hire someone. Innovating as per usual.

399 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 9 Feb freebie

This is tangentially related, maybe, but I'm very intrigued, in a systems-builder type of way, in how big undertakings (like your codebase) can be rendered maximally approachable to someone.

We have a lot of work to do on this front.

It reminds me of @Michelson_Morley sharing his favorite contribution guide before he left us forever.

The Forever Trial will really only solve a piece of the approach - helping people pick what to work on and motivating them to do it and do it well. It's still too hard to get started contributing to SN. Most of our trial members suffered for a few days just getting setup.

Innovating as per usual.

It seems all this requires is energetically solving the problems created by one's own shortcomings. Krush is an excellent example. I wish I understood this earlier.