Proposal 1 (Q1952): Difference between revisions
From Nouns Dev
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
TiagoLubiana (talk | contribs) (Changed an Item) |
||
| Property / Question & Answer | |||
sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h / rank | |||
Normal rank | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h / qualifier | |||
| Property / Question & Answer: sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h / qualifier | |||
Answer: The question asked was about various aspects of the nomination and voting process for the Nouns DAO impact rewards. The conversation provided some thoughts and opinions on these aspects, but no definitive answers were given. The conversation mainly served as a starting point for further discussion and planning. | |||
Revision as of 18:03, 8 July 2023
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 1 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
0
0 references
Donate 5 ETH each to 6 Charities
0 references
1
0 references
1
0 references
19 August 2021
0 references
Donate 5 ETH each to 6 Charities --- --- *Past Discussions* --- - [Original proposal with emoji consensus]( --- - [SharkDAO adds Coral Restoration Foundation]( --- - [4156 adds GiveCrypto]( --- --- As the first test of Nouns DAO governance and to demonstrate to the community how the ecosystem works, we will donate 5 ETH each to 6 charities. With the exception of Coral Restoration Foundation and GiveCrypto, these charities were chosen because they have publicly available Ethereum donation addresses. --- Coral Restoration Foundation was recommended by SharkDAO and their representative Goldy.mov generated an address on the charity's site. GiveCrypto was recommended by 4156 and he generated an address on the charity's site. --- --- Charity List --- *The order of the charities below matches the order of addresses in this proposal's `targets` attribute* --- 1. [Coral Restoration Foundation]( --- - 0x0e09cEb98492715ec5B080d2b95B5004ddF43947 (Generated by Goldy.mov) --- 2. [Freedom Of The Press Foundation]( --- - 0x998F25Be40241CA5D8F5fCaF3591B5ED06EF3Be7 --- 3. [Internet Archive]( --- - 0xFA8E3920daF271daB92Be9B87d9998DDd94FEF08 --- 4. [Rainforest Foundation US]( --- - 0x54334Ebc8c9ef04bc28D614Caa557143ED8AfC87 --- 5. [Tor Project]( --- - 0x532Fb5D00f40ced99B16d1E295C77Cda2Eb1BB4F --- 6.
0 references
7
0 references
Nouns dao
0 references
19 August 2021
0 references
<@!410593947027505162> do you have a repo for the nouns center?
The repo for the Nouns Center exists, but it is currently private. It will be open source when they launch.
0 references
<@410593947027505162> I remember the first iteration of <a:noun_earth:923689442324144178>** Nouns Center** always having a persistent sidebar menu. Is there a reason for the always hidden menu? (definitely looks cleaner, but today as I was browsing the site, I found it to be tedious to keep clicking the menu to go to a new page.)
The reason for the always hidden menu in the first iteration of Nouns Center was to create more real estate and a better design, similar to HBO Max's hamburger menu on desktop. However, after receiving feedback, an update was pushed to make the menu folders default to open, while still allowing them to be closed if desired. This change aimed to improve accessibility and user experience while maintaining a clean design.
0 references
<@!410593947027505162> do you have a repo for the nouns center?
The repo for the Nouns Center exists, but it is currently private. It will be open source when they launch.
0 references
Gn Everynoun, just found out about the Reverse Job board and submitted my application to be featured! --Wondering what are the steps from here?
After submitting your application to be featured on the Reverse Job board, cdt#3727 will add you to the board. There might be a backlog since they handle a lot of data, but they will eventually get you on there. Your profile picture on the Reverse Job board will be a randomly generated Noun using Noun API.
0 references
has there been any discussion/plans for linking to nouns center from nouns.wtf ?
Yes, there has been a discussion about linking to Nouns Center from nouns.wtf. cdt#3727 mentioned they were thinking of opening a PR for this.
0 references
Nice! Is all the info from the notion docs ported to Nouns Center? I think I looked a while ago and it wasn’t
No, not all the info from the notion docs has been ported to Nouns Center. There isn't a 1:1 `Docs` page on Nouns Center.
0 references
sure, agreed. how much of this already exists can be sent to me. i’m assuming the nounders have a generic email for these things? what is it?--who would write the primer/overview, if this doesn’t already exist.--we have glasses not but i think for blogposts it’d be good to send them other assets too but need Nounder/Nouner alignment.- - Logo PNGs (glasses & text)- - Glasses files- - maybe a set or full constricted nouns (10?) to use at will- - couple promo images (screenshot of first auction, group of nouns together, and maybe a collage of derivatives).--if stories are written on nouns they’ll touch in history, cc0 (derivatives), and impact. so just thinking of imagery to best support that and be able to hand off nicely--i hate to keep throwing it back but none of this content should be coming from non-Nounders imo so best i can do i aggregate & host it.
The question was about the existence of a generic email for Nounders and who would write the primer/overview. 4156#9052 replied that they will work on getting the requested information and assets within 1-2 weeks.
0 references
thanks, open to others opinion. i’ve thought about this a lot and i’m sure i’ll have to revisit layout as the number of projects scale.--question for you. do we include all projects on the same page and allow ppl to filter by category? --ie. we have different project types:- - Noadz (available to purchase)- - Coloring book (free download)- - Nounspedia (website)--🅰️: one project page with filters-🅱️: separate page per project type--feel free to vote
A. one project page with filters
0 references
what would be the point of finding out which categories are most vs least clicked on? reordering the buttons? if i only have 3-4 filters for the order matter that much?--i don’t think i’d remove any _type_ of project even if it gets less clicks?
The point of finding out which categories are most vs least clicked on would be to understand the most popular ways users want to filter the projects and learn how users categorize. It's not about removing any type of project but rather arriving at good sorting filters.
0 references
Will the complete list of Nouns subDAOs be uploaded on https://nouns.center/subdaos soon?
The complete list of Nouns subDAOs is being worked on and should be uploaded on https://nouns.center/subdaos by the end of the month.
0 references
Any idea when the Impact Rewards ends? Or is that dependent on when everyone distributes their GIVE
The Impact Rewards end date was not explicitly mentioned in the conversation. However, it seems that the rewards have already been distributed, as JoelCares#5898 mentioned, Check your wallets 🙏 and We sent out 101 payments totalling 100 ETH.
0 references
Henlo Nounish Folk!--We have 100 ETH for people building in the Nouniverse, as per Prop 63 - https://nouns.wtf/vote/63. We have compiled a huge list of people, once it's finalized we will hold a large coordinape round with those nominated and disperse the 100 ETH accordingly.--**BIG LIST OF NOMINEES**-https://nouncil.notion.site/nouncil/e52614f01e56475aa710d716ee8c69b7?v=6d1fe0cff7b645b5ab551c629cf02b16--See yourself on that list? If you have information to add please submit it to us using this form: --**PROP 63 NOMINEE DETAILS FORM - SUBMIT**-https://www.addressform.io/form/ff77863b-f160-4d63-b70e-1ed986a8da07--We need Discord / twitter usernames, wallet addresses, and short & sweet summaries of Nounish contributions. You can also post small updates to <#970759473624940564>. --Dont see yourself on the list? Let us know about your contribution and we will add you.--Nominations and Form Edits will be accepted up until end-of-day July 31. We will manually confirm wallet addresses with Nominees after that by private DM, and then move forward with the Coordinape.
The question asked was about the 100 ETH for people building in the Nouniverse as per Prop 63. The conversation provided details about the nomination process, the list of nominees, and how to submit information using the provided form. Nominations and form edits were accepted until the end of July 31. The conversation also included reminders and discussions about updating information and submitting the address form.
0 references
sharing some questions after reading the doc off the bat:-* are we thinking the target entity that we nominate / vote for are only individuals or also proposals? (noting that proposals are often teams / groups) -> I think it's a trade off. we might not have enough ETH for this to be meaningful rewards towards past proposals. but limiting it to non-proposals might skew the conversation towards people and not projects. that might be what we want but worth thinking about. --* are we thinking that the people that vote are nominees only OR are we thinking non-nominees (e.g. general nouners) also vote?-> my gut is to leverage non-nominees too but maybe it's hard to get enough participation? also if it's weighted by number of nouns owned, then we might end up with nounders + a few whales by and large deciding the outcome. --* is self-nomination allowed?-> I think we should and no reason to shame/limit against imo.--* are nominees allowed / encouraged to campaign? is there going to be some forum for them to write out their work & impact from their own view? -> I think it might be important to set the right tone. I personally would like a culture where ppl are encouraged to shamelessly advocate for themselves. at least all performance conversations I'm used to start from the individual giving an overview / advocating for the impact of their work. also if this isn't encouraged then only the more visible & top of mind people / projects might get voted for since there is no new information to consider holistically. --* are voters (beyond the person nominating) going to be able to share supporting comments (reasons) associated with their vote?-> I think this would be a key way in which people that worked closely to an individual or a project can offer their view on the details and impact of the work. I think this and the question above can help reduce the likelihood of the Nightmare Scenario outlined in the doc where ppl feel hurt due to feeling underrecognized by peers.--* what is the time period of the impact we're evaluating?-> easy / fair approach could be all past contribution since inception. but then again maybe we don't have enough ETH for since inception. or maybe we do. idk. --* how do we gauge success? -> the strongest signal for me would be if the rewardees' long-term contribution trajectory towards the DAO moves up materially. the number of people that h
The question asked was about various aspects of the nomination and voting process for the Nouns DAO impact rewards. The conversation provided some thoughts and opinions on these aspects, but no definitive answers were given. The conversation mainly served as a starting point for further discussion and planning.
0 references
