Work interface
As a user of someone's work I don't need to care how it is implemented I just want some thing satisfied. Similar how computer programming interfaces work, I want to depend on someone else's implementation or work that they do and use it
Give people complete freedom how to decide how to solve some work purpose from time organisation to planning techniques.
Enforce a boundary of work completed and this boundary should not impose any rules or requirements how the work is to be done.
So if it was a sandwich shop, then the staff can decide how to organise their work per order. But they have the requirement to pass the information to the cashier or the cashier asks what they ordered.
+[project]
This idea is that people are given an obnoxious number of free variables to define and how they work as long as if satisfies an inferface
Already done, already practiced by macromanagers.
// This idea is that people are given an obnoxious number of free variables to define and how they work as long as if satisfies an inferface
How would this "megamanagement" be different from what Wikipedia describes as "macromanagement"?
It's practically the same thing except there needs to be some form of information system to collect desired results. Infinity family is kind of that system already as if doesn't define how work should be done.
I also want other people to implement things I've created on infinity family. I don't impose how they should solve the problem only that they produce it. So I want scalable computing to be easy and spread out computation and data storage maybe backed by a CRDT.
It occurred to me that if I could place a bounty in an infinity puzzle or idea that would encourage people to start projects based on them.
It occurred to me that I could informally propose a stake or a bounty as a comment. Would you be opposed to this Mindey?
There was a version of Infinity with prizes for "Problems", i.e., each problem working like a fund, where people put incentives. However, technically, each fund is a "company", so, ontologically, it belongs to be a feature of a "project". To realize such feature in proper ontological fashion, would be linking many companies (i.e.., "Projects") to a single problem (just like there are many non-profit organizations working towards a single problem). These "Projects" (orgs) then can work as funds for the problem. However, we already allow to link multiple projects to a single problem (concept/puzzle). This implies, that this feature of funding problems could be realized by adding a type "is fund" to projects, and adding appropriate logic in the level of problems (concepts/puzzle), that allows users to allocate funds to the problem via the projects that are funds for them.