Proposal 1 (Q1952): Difference between revisions

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