search

oceanprotocol-archive / oceandao

🐡 OceanDAO wiki
29 stars 9 forks source link

Formalize + Implement the processes & tooling required to establish the PGWG workflows. #86

Closed idiom-bytes closed 2 years ago

idiom-bytes commented 2 years ago

Overview

The Project-Guiding Working Group (PGWG) has been established to introduce a social layer on top of the grants process & OceanDAO ecosystem.

The goal of the PGWG is to provide a human layer that connects participants, provides mentorship, and establishes support systems for all contributors and voters.

Key Processes

For each of the processes below, we need participants that understand them, are able to execute them, and have the right tools in place to enable the process to scale in a healthy, decentralized, and autonomous manner.

These processes are:

Possible tools that will empower this WG to achieve this may be:

DOD:

idiom-bytes commented 2 years ago

(1) For further insights and concepts behind this Epic & deliverables, please refer to proposal submitted to Port for Round 12:

(2) Please refer to @realdatawhale WRT to "Auditing Framework" that Evaluators could do. This is equivalent to Key Process - Review project updates & grant deliverable and provides some direction as to how this should look-like for the end-user (voter) inside Port when they are learning about the proposals.

Personally, I’d love to have a “digestable” executive summary on each proposal that was written within a pre-defined audit framework.

drprk commented 2 years ago

I believe this EPIC to be a conglomeration of Github issue #83 & #85 .

Apart from the pointers mentioned in previous threads that brought in suggestions wrt to Discourse, other forum options and payment streams, we can continue on the following logistics.

PG-WG Leaders:

PG-WG roles and responsibilities:

Brainstorming on tools that will enable our process:

Apart from this, there should be a social pull of 'What makes Co-ordinapes special? Why should the community care?'

IMHO, If executed well PG-WG could be a very efficient Sub-DAO within the Ocean DAO, given the fact that it acts as the knowledge graph of communicating Project information to our own community members, before it dissipates to the overall community.

Potential Roadmap suggestions for Co-ordinapes:

toobli commented 2 years ago

Hey all, the PGWG seems to be picking up some solid traction here. I'm coming in a little late so please keep that in mind wrt comments/thoughts below as I may be lacking some context.

There's clearly a need from both the OPF/Ocean stakeholder's perspective and also for new and existing DAO projects to have some form of project working group for Ocean and there are many different ways we could go about achieving this.

I wanted to propose one potential way of moving this forward which may or may not be useful (hopefully it is!).

If we start from the perspective that the right amount of work/effort is the least amount of work possible that successfully addresses the current problem(s), then we would 1. want to clearly understand the problems this WG is solving and then 2. come up with solutions for addressing those and 3. track/monitor how well we are addressing the problems the WG was set up for.

We could list out all the problems that this WG is set up to address for OPF/Ocean Stakeholders and then do the same for new and existing DAO projects (ask new and existing DAO projects what they would want/need from a PGWG like this for example). Once we have this list, we can prioritise accordingly (essentially building out our PGWG backlog). For the highest priority ones we can dig deeper to clearly identify/define them. We would then be able to identify the best solutions to address the highest priority problems.

From here we can then track/monitor how well we are doing as we progress, others can objectively review the PGWG's performance and we can course correct accordingly. Investing in this work up front will helps us lay out a plan that will be easier for new joiners to understand and begin working on.

These are just some thoughts for consideration and some of this work may have already been done which I have missed.

Either way I'm keen to help with this initiative however I can.

drprk commented 2 years ago

Thanks for joining the convo @scottymilat , very much agree with your pointers. I think the list of problems is being dissected across #83 , #85 at the moment, to go along with the Proposal on Port [ https://port.oceanprotocol.com/t/project-guiding-work-group-rewards/1190/10 ].

We can keep filtering the discussion points till we arrive at the V0.1 process

idiom-bytes commented 2 years ago

If we start from the perspective that the right amount of work/effort is the least amount of work possible that successfully addresses the current problem(s), then we would 1. want to clearly understand the problems this WG is solving and then 2. come up with solutions for addressing those and 3. track/monitor how well we are addressing the problems the WG was set up for.

I generally agree. But also think it's important to ship first.

I was telling @scottymillat about this approach for building products called salesprocess.io and thought I'd share it here. Most specifically this image, and how very early on your product development journey,:

  1. Build out manual a manual processes that executes the outcome.
  2. Identify what's painful or valuable, that can be leveraged and scaled.

I think this would be a very constructive methodology to apply to these next steps inside the PGWG.

Do the max that we can, with the minimum required. But focus on process & outcome, rather than research & learning. Get the core process down. Iterate.

As defined in The Lean Startup. Build -> Measure -> Learn

Screenshot from 2021-12-20 15-31-19

I would propose our key tools are:

Where we do all the work

How we fund the group

toobli commented 2 years ago

Hey guys, thanks for bringing me up to speed with the conversation yesterday and sorry I had to leave to the other call.

This is a useful clarification @idiom-bytes and +1 on the importance of shipping first.

In summary, my understanding from yesterday is that while we aim to provide more sophisticated guidance in the future, the initial need is more straight forward.

Key problems identified:

  1. No engagement on some proposals (not good experience especially for first time proposers)
  2. Downvoting on proposals with little or no feedback/context
  3. Not enough members in PGWG to provide necessary guidance/feedback

There is a need for 2 main funnels to develop:

  1. How can I onboard as an Evaluator
  2. How can I onboard as a grantee/proposer

I have jotted down how I understand the overall workflow for each of these below. I'm less clear on how the DAO proposer receives feedback (at least for V1).

Hopefully this information is useful/relevant. Again I'm not sure if I've missed anything so please feel free to add/change/delete as necessary.

Right now the most immediate problem I can see is that we don't have enough evaluators within the PGWG and so I suggest we focus on solving this problem first.

These are the steps I see for each workflow

Screen Shot 2021-12-21 at 10 05 56 AM

Link to suggest edits to this diagram is here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qkfBFFFDCOjax7X_0Q3-bBBI1J0aLjKkQvtTWpiyWHA/edit?usp=sharing

idiom-bytes commented 2 years ago

Hi everyone, I'm moving this task to closed.

I believe we implemented some of these processes and have increased the number of contributors in the PGWG.

I think there are things in here that we can improve on, but I'd like to close this ticket.

If you see anything, please feel free to create a new ticket, and reference this one as the source.

Thank you!