Ratified Doc 106 - Factom Grant Success Determination Process

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Crypto Logic Crypto Logic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman De Facto De Facto Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore Julian Fletcher-Taylor LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech Matter of Fact Matter of Fact Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Niels Klomp Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Samuel Vanderwaal Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority Tor Paulsen VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes Federate This Federate This

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#31
The document still lacks the amendment matrix required by doc002.

Regarding self-assesment/review. As a minimum every grant should be concluded by a written final report submitted to the standing parties. For something small like our open node grant it could just be half a page stating that it was successful, and in continous opperation, maybe listing any outages and why it happened and how fixed. Having a mandatory self-score could be an good idea, as it would force grant recipieents to take a stance on own performance that can be publicly questioned by standing-parties and broader community.
 
Secured
#32
The document still lacks the amendment matrix required by doc002.
Thank you for the reminder. I've added it in.

Regarding self-assesment/review. As a minimum every grant should be concluded by a written final report submitted to the standing parties. For something small like our open node grant it could just be half a page stating that it was successful, and in continous opperation, maybe listing any outages and why it happened and how fixed. Having a mandatory self-score could be an good idea, as it would force grant recipieents to take a stance on own performance that can be publicly questioned by standing-parties and broader community.
The summary in this doc would cover everything except a "self-score" if I'm interpreting that correctly. To clarify, you're suggesting that the grantee or a sponsor provide an actual numerical score based upon the rubrik as part of the summary?
 
Secured
#33
Thank you for the reminder. I've added it in.


The summary in this doc would cover everything except a "self-score" if I'm interpreting that correctly. To clarify, you're suggesting that the grantee or a sponsor provide an actual numerical score based upon the rubrik as part of the summary?
That is what @Mike Buckingham suggested above we believe. It forces the grant-applicant to actualy spend time evaluvating their own work (which is good), it provides community with a starting point and can help with identifying discrepancies between grantees own view of performance and the community's.

We like the idea but there might also be reasons not to do it. The most important thing is to have a mandatory final report written by grant-applicants.
 
Secured
#34
That is what @Mike Buckingham suggested above we believe. It forces the grant-applicant to actualy spend time evaluvating their own work (which is good), it provides community with a starting point and can help with identifying discrepancies between grantees own view of performance and the community's.

We like the idea but there might also be reasons not to do it. The most important thing is to have a mandatory final report written by grant-applicants.
Thank you. @Mike Buckingham I've updated the document to have the following:

The thread will be replied to by the initiator of the determination bringing attention to the poll, a link to this document, a summary of the grant performance, provide the below scoring rubric, and provide their own score based upon that rubrik as part of the summary:
 
Secured
#39
In general, grant review should not be gated on anything the grantee does or says, or really any suggestion to the standing parties on how to review a grant.

I think it is pretty simple, that the standing parties are happy with the performance, or they are not. With some kind of scale we can use to generate a score. (The scale and the score can be automated, and can be used to determine standing granted to the grantee, which can also be automated on chain)

All the other stuff, what we tell people and the box of rules we socialize with grantees and the standing parties are ultimately just that: socialized processes.

With this in mind, we should not treat this document as a legal document with strict rules (as many have seemed to view it) but as a socialization of the expectations we have for the grantees and the standing parties.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#40
The final poll is available for Guides to vote on now for 3 days. If Guides pass the vote with 4 "Yes" votes then ANOs will be able to vote. If Guides fail to pass, there will be no further action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.