@NakoTurk : “But the incentive of each form of support should not be the same.” it is ofc so. We can just give a small number of points for posts in social networks, and more points for complex work.
[9:11 PM]
@jrwashburn , a very formal and structured job! You definitely have that skillet
I especially like the final part:
using existing teams /ambs for different purposes and in different time periods depending on demand
Yes. in short reply -a. But I’m creating an article with a more expansive proposal
But we should not ignore this either, if there is no social media, it will take much longer for your project to be recognized.Together with social media I have enabled people to install dozens of nodes in Subspace. These are also very important, the more the number of users, the more important it is for improvements and sees value.
Okay, I see your point. And even making different categories of activities with different coefficients can also be abused. Maybe someone found a missing comma in some important text then even though it will belong to a different category - it should not be rewarded with a significant amount of scores. Then I can see the point to publish such evaluation criteria (right in forms) like:
- workmanship, mastery
(here the painstakingness and approach with emphasis on the quality of the artist/coder/researcher is judged, which simply says something about his/her attitude and technical skills which anyway can be used in future)
- the value of the contribution (i.e. how much this particular job, code, article according to the general opinion, should bring results, for ex. can involve significant amount of new participants or improve important component of the ecosystem etc.).
Say mastery hits for someone at 10 but has very low value bcz it useless but it is still not a problem. Therefore I’d propose do not ariphmetic-mean or summarize them but to record two types of scores, as they are different and can work at it’s own ways, while contain and maintain valuable information about the participant’s strengths and qualities.
We can achieve the difference in scoring with categories as you said. This means a more detailed scoring system and reward distribution. I emphasized that someone from the team should also make a separate scoring for a second evaluation in case of abuse. Both in this way, the work done will be of higher quality and we will move the scoring system within ourselves to a more serious point. For example, if a team gives 4/5 points to someone who was given one point in the voting, there are situations that need to be examined here. I think we can improve the quality in this way.
That’s it. I believe that the quality is the higher the more evaluators there are.
But
… you’re saying that a Subspace Labs or Subspace Founders team evaluation will have more weight? ) I guess so. It reminds me of PoS, but in a good sense, where the one who has more voting power is the one having more resources, in this case - knowledge.
So, we could complicate our automatic scoring mechanism
So, we could complicate our automatic scoring mechanism a bit more by taking into account the weight of the voter (evaluator), who gets this weight as a result of his progress on the basis of general opinion, over time. Accordingly, Subspace Labs, for example, will have the highest weight here, although some of the ambassadors can also gain significant values.
EDITED: later i decided to not implement “voting weight”, please see my article
Very strong start indeed on this draft of the bylaws. It inspires a lot of confidence to see how detailed and thorough they are. I have just a few comments.
Article 1 paragraph 4, a through c.
I hope this section is read thoroughly by all ambassadors because it details the relationship between Subspace Labs and the ambassador program.
Article 1 paragraph 4, d through g
D: This paragraph mostly follows the admission process that has been used before
E: Here we talk about ambassador termination through the use of a Dispute Resolution process. Understanding this process is important for ambassadors with minimal contributions to the program that do still want to maintain their token grant.
F:
In Article 3 paragraph 3, it’s mentioned that an ambassador can be elevated to a Lead by creating an Ad hoc team and campaigning for their team to be voted in as an Official team.
I agree with using the above as a procedure for creating new teams and new ambassadors. But I think that it should be noted that the procedure above is different than the procedure of appointing new lead ambassadors to an existing team – whether that be because the existing team is expanding or because the previous Lead of the team was terminated.
In either case I would prefer a procedure where multiple voters are involved in the election process, with a pre-determined timeline for the election and performance of the new lead to take place. (i.e. the election will be held at the next general assembly, performance of the new lead expected within 30 days of election).
Article 2. Roles of Ambassadors
I believe this is part of what the great discussion between @wilyam and @NakoTurk has been focused on.
While I do think that having more structured guidance on the Role of Ambassadors is a huge area of opportunity for the program, I think we have to be cautious with the form that it takes.
It’s clear that there is an opportunity for the program to be more productive. We can combat that by giving everyone a task list, but having such a black and white method for judging contributions may not be the best solution.
Instead I think there should be a hybrid approach where there is a slightly stricter set of expectations, but there is still freedom and encouragement for ambassadors to step away from a checklist and do their best work. There are a lot of things for us to build that can’t be put into a checklist.
I like the idea of Lead Ambassadors having the most strict requirements, while having a larger role in setting expectations for members that join their team. There are different tasks that an ambassador on the Content team might need to accomplish versus an ambassador on the Support team, for example.
Conclusion:
I love where the bylaws and conversation are headed. I think it’s important to be intentional with what part of the bylaws are being discussed, so the conversation can stay focused and productive.
I think this is too long and too formal. I’m going to suggest a lot of simplification. It won’t be as precise or explicity, but it can get the point across and maybe not be so long that nobody will read it.
I’m pretty opposed to having Subspace Foundation or Labs have a voting stake (particularly a heavily weighted one) in this regard. The program should be self-governing and not appeal to authority (IMO.) What are the concerns that have you wanting labs involvement in scoring?
That’s not quite what I intended; I think the leadership election is separate from the “Official” ness of the team. A team could become an Official Team, which just means they get allocated one or more slots for what are currently Lead Ambassadors. How those slots get filled should be up to the team using a democratic process. Just because you create doesn’t mean you get to be the leader.
I agree with this, but am not exaclty sure what you mean by “performance of the new lead”. Can you clarify that?
If someone isn’t upholding their agreement, particularly if they are a “lead”, the agreement should probably be terminated, although it could be a demotion as well. Conflict resolution could figure that out.
It upholds the principle of permissionless and gives as much autonomy as possible to the ambassadors or teams. Why should someone who is not related to a decision participate in it? There are many problems when disinterested people get to decide on things that don’t impact them.
I like using something like this - keeping it simple and using a relative score on two axes. There are all the risks of subjectivity when it is so simple, but it has the advantage of being practical and I think the subjectivity can average out over several samples.
In another post @wilyam has gone into some detail to propose variable reward schemes. I’d like to bring the fundamental question back here to discuss:
What do we think about meritocratic approach to ambassador awards which would mean replacing the time-based vesting structure and moving over to some sort of unit based scoring mechanism? I’m not fundamentally opposed, but I am worried about spending a bunch of time and energy in complicated scoring processes and don’t think it materially moves the needle.
What would change my mind would be if people think that we are losing energy because the time-based vesting really just incentivizes doing the minimum to not get kicked out, whereas a points system would create a lot more energy and motivation. I think that might be true, and if so, we should really consider it.
I would propose that whatever scoring scheme we use, it is relative, meaning your cumulative score would determine your “weight” in the ambassador pool which would get funded based on the current commitments (I don’t think we would get support to change the tokenomics, but think we could get support to reallocate how we share the allocation.)
I also think it would be important to a) trial it in parallel for a few months, b) have a clearly defined way to transition with clear acceptance criteria, and c) have it be as simple as we can while still attracting the new creativity we hope it will bring.
2 Likes
I have significantly revised Article 2 to propse a new selection mechanism. Feedback is requested!
- Applicants. Any member of the community may apply to begin the process of becoming an Ambassador. The application process includes providing information to present the skills and experience of the Applicant and how they would like to contribute to the program. Upon submitting an application, the Applicant may join one or more Ad hoc or Official Teams as an Applicant. Contributions of the Applicant should be Submitted to a Peer Review Process. If an Applicant is removed from the Program, they may re-apply after a 3 month waiting period. Applicants that have been removed from the Program 3 times may not reapply.
- Selection of Apprentice Ambassadors. Applicants that have completed the Onboarding Curriculum and have been ranked above average in at least 2 successive Peer Review Periods can request nomination as an Apprentice. Any nomination having the support of at least two Ambassadors will be granted the role of Apprentice.
- Selection of Ambassadors. Ambassadors will be recruited and Admitted to the Program from the pool of Apprentice Ambassadors that are in good standing. Official Teams may advertise for one or more openings for new Ambassadors at any time. Ad hoc Teams may advertise for one or more openings for new Ambassadors with the consent of any two Official Team Lead Ambassadors. Apprentices may apply to fill an advertised opening, and may be selected by the Consent of the advertising team.
This would be a rather different process, and while it would require more work from those applying, I think it would have lower overhead and ensure the program is attracting interested, productive contributors.
1 Like
This should probably be Ranked-Choice Vote or Simple Majority depending on the number of candidates.
Good evening.
Isn’t everything too complicated in point 2? Can do so - Applicants who have completed the adaptation program and received an above-average grade for at least 2 consecutive review periods are automatically automatically assigned Apprentice.
After all, they did so well, and why should they apply for an Apprentice again ? )
1 Like
Hello, I think many people will want to fill out this application, are you planning on doing a limit on the number of applicants selected in one month or something similar? And can you tell please when approximately to expect this form to be available?
My thinking/concern here was that we just have the applicants being evaluated by other applicants; it could be easy to get a group together to score each other highly; having an extra review step could be a check against that. The process is randomized to help with this, but there may be many ways to game it.
One other point - I did not mean 2 consecutive, but simply 2 above average scores over time. They could be several months apart, so it does not imply consistency. That could be another reason for the application. (We could also change it to be consecutive if consistency is important.)
Finally, I was thinking we may want a gate so that we don’t have a massive wave of applicants → apprentice in a short period of time, and then not have enough demand for actual ambassadors. This could probably be handled in other ways - e.g. limiting the size of the pool.
All of that said, your suggestion is better and certainly simpler (which is also better!) In addition to the scoring, we also require that they complete the onboarding curriculum, so if we need gating, it can also be added in that process (such as the mini-project presentations we use currently.) Do you think we should change to require consecutive above average scores?
I like your suggestion and will adopt it, pending the discussion on consecutive vs. simply 2 above avg.
I don’t have a timeframe currently - we (Governance Guild) are drafting the Bylaws, which then need to be approved/implemented. This process is an idea currently and requires a lot more discussion as to its value/preference vs. the current and other potential processes for onboarding/selection.
Prior to implementation the Bylaws will have to be approved via a consent process with Subspace Foundation and the current Ambassador group. There are many significant changes being considered, so this process will take some time - I’m not sure how to forecast that today.
1 Like
What I mean by “performance of a new lead” is essentially the transition of contributing 4 hours per week to 10. When should we expect a candidate who wins the lead election to start contributing as a lead?