During our last team call (3/12/20) we dove into looking at manually adding contributions for CredCon, and evaluating value/weights as a community. During this process of trying methods and testing how we talk about, evaluate, and compare the value of contributions I noticed some patterns in our conversations about each initiative.
I imagine creating something that could be a set of topics we discuss for each initiative when evaluating its value, a form filled out once an irl contribution has been made, or (eventually) a UI to help us add new contribution nodes to the graph directly.
I imagine having fields something like:
- Type (like project/master initiative, initiative, and nested initiative. Whatever the terminology ends up being used to delineate the scope of an initiative/contribution/action)
- Description (an overview)
- Concrete Value Created
- Abstract Value Created
- Additional Contributors
- Contributions (may or may not be “nested initiatives” with their own forms)
This is all pretty loose in my mind, and I’m super open to the community deciding what kinds of terminology we want to use, or which fields/topics of discussion around value we find useful.
I also created an example to help folks get an idea of what I mean using the “arrange food” initiative within the “CredCon master initiative” as an example:
There’s no real call to action here other than an invitation to think with me on the way we manage/value our manually added contributions and the process behind that.