Ryeder's Sourcecred Config Proposal 🚧🚧Incomplete [defunct/not a proposal]

[Jolie_Ze]

Config proposal part I

Channel changes

• Tech support = 4.5 instead of 3
• Introductions = 1.5 instead of 1
• Propportunities = same as props
• Start here = 0.1 instead of 1
• Announcements = 1 instead of 0.1

[
  {
    "channelWeightConfig": {
      "defaultWeight": 1,
      "weights": {
        "454007860926611478": 3,
        "543168537062014987": 12,
        "679064720375808026": 15,
        "874862700428152862": 15,
        "718263631158050896": 4.5,
        "715770410955964477": 0.1,
        "743545520445718700": 8,
        "677588235387404330": 1.5
      }
    },
    "guildId": "453243919774253079",
    "includeNsfwChannels": false,
    "propsChannels": [
      "679064720375808026", 
      "743545520445718700"
    ],
    "reactionWeightConfig": {
      "applyAveraging": false,
      "defaultWeight": 1,
      "weights": {
        "sourcecred:626763367893303303": 3,
        "👎": 0
      }
    },
    "roleWeightConfig": {
      "defaultWeight": 0,
      "weights": {
        "477551557723029514": 2,
        "717905642299457567": 3,
        "717905734863421472": 1
      }
    }
  }
]

A note about the propportunities channel:

A new props channel where Core members post to pitch a project and everyone emoji reacts to show support. Then, someone can pick up the project and the owner of the post @mentions them once they’ve completed it so that they claim the Cred of the supportive emoji reacts.

Continuing the Creditor prototyping on Discord, this channel functions as a project management tool for initiating and prioritizing projects.

Upon completion, additional notes can be added to the post to indicate length and other details as necessary. A template can be ascertained after the prototype gets a chance in action. It’s people-powered, so we shouldn’t have to worry too much about it getting out of control.

Config proposal part II

Weights Before

Weights After

The overall cred changes are not very large, this is more of a value-aligned alteration to weights to ground our instance in encouraging participation rather than have cred taken when you affirm others with emoji reacts and mentions (pro-social, human-centered).

Current Cred on the Explorer Page 2021-08-17

Local Instance with Changes

[hz]

try this

[
  {
    "channelWeightConfig": {
      "defaultWeight": 1,
      "weights": {
        "454007860926611478": 3,
        "543168537062014987": 12,
        "679064720375808026": 15,
        "874862700428152862": 15,
        "718263631158050896": 4.5,
        "715770410955964477": 0.1,
        "743545520445718700": 8,
        "677588235387404330": 1.5,
        "718512695875469353": 0.1
      }
    },
    "guildId": "453243919774253079",
    "includeNsfwChannels": false,
    "propsChannels": [
      "679064720375808026", 
      "743545520445718700"
    ],
    "reactionWeightConfig": {
      "applyAveraging": false,
      "defaultWeight": 1,
      "weights": {
        "sourcecred:626763367893303303": 3,
        "👎": 0
      }
    },
    "roleWeightConfig": {
      "defaultWeight": 0,
      "weights": {
        "477551557723029514": 2,
        "717905642299457567": 3,
        "717905734863421472": 1
      }
    }
  }
]

[scrabbleboy]

In the vein of the reducing grain payouts not being necessary at this point (from the last core meeting) since we’re looking at bigger systemic change on the horizon (separate instances for product, ecosystems, and community), I see this reconfiguration as unnecessary and too labor intensive to do properly at this time.

This reconfiguration would go much more efficiently if each circle (devs/product, ecosystems, community) huddled to determine their OWN instance configurations; this would also increase the signal/noise ratio in such discussions. The only thing to determine before that point would be the ratio of total grain distributed to each instance (e.g. 60% product, 30% ecosystems, 10% community) which I believe is a much easier and practical conversation to have as a wider community.

If we were to do this properly, a big systemic change such as this should undergo a wider community discussion as it affects everyone very significantly. If we were to do a reconfiguration before separate instances, we need to expand the discussion:

1. Have a bigger context discussion to determine what values we want to bring to the forefront in configuration. I don’t believe anyone here will disagree about having ‘pro-social’ and ‘human-centered’ as values, but they are very general and there should be other values included which reflect what activities we want to encourage within SC. The new proposal does not see to adequately address the nuanced activities aligning with these values which currently go on in effort of the two pillars on which SourceCred can find independence and stability - product/dev and ecosystems; rather, it seems to be an iteration which keeps most of the vestiges of our old cred / current cred system which led us to current difficulties in the first place by too heavily incentivizing activities outside the two pillars.

2. Determine to what degree we want to have the cred configuration align with respective values determined from step 1. There are many different iterations of configurations to reflect espousing values pertaining to each of the two pillars. In addition, there are nuances to ideally be configured within each pillar (for example, it doesn’t make sense to have a community with no context or background in product/coding have input as to how to configure dev workflows).

I also disagree with the statement that this change doesn’t ‘significantly change cred scores’, especially without further rationale or elaboration. I see many IDs where there are cred swings of +/- 20%, one way to interpret this for simplicity’s sake is that some (including myself) would face a 20% reduction in compensation, which is very arguably significant.

There are many other topics which can be discussed (e.g. why do we even mint cred for announcements? We can link the SC calendar to discord with Zapier and automate it, reducing need for labor and eliminating cred discussions for announcements altogether). But I won’t to keep the scope of this discussion high level.

[decentralion]

I’m concerned about the implications of the proportunities channel:

1. In the “happy case” where the work is proposed and then completed, the proposer and the do-er would get similar amounts of Cred. However, doing the work is a lot more work than proposing it, so this seems unfair.
2. In the case where the work doesn’t get completed, the proposer gets more Cred than if it does get done. This creates a strong incentive to propose flashy projects and not worry about the results. In this sense, it feels low-accountability.
3. Limiting posting to only Core means that members of Core have a way to earn outsized Cred with low accountability that isn’t available to anyone else.

Overall, I think the proposal of de-centralizing control of weights into smaller circles within SourceCred will lead the community in a healthier direction, rather than centralizing more power in Core.

[Jolie_Ze]

The new channel would be weighted like a props channel (again, this is incomplete and that may or may not be reflected yet in the config depending on which iteration you’ve seen since this is actively under construction on and off this post) so that should alleviate your concerns since writers of props only take a very small fraction of cred for a post.

[Jolie_Ze]

Bo, your response is huge and the proposal isn’t complete yet. I can’t even respond to you because you are disagreeing with things I haven’t had a chance to substantiate in the post and then creating fictional logic to take it’s place. Slow your roll, dude.

Why did you choose to reply to this when it clearly stated, “incomplete” in the title?

I look forward to your proposals that you say would be much better suited to the time of our collective evolution, but until then please check yourself before elaborating on clearly incomplete ones that I am actively asking for help with to finish. The only feedback I welcomed on this incomplete post, very clearer, was stated thus:

Looking for a gracious soul to help me with any bugs in my config proposal. The total cred doesn’t line up and there may be other problems, i wanna make sure it’s correct before i promote it as complete

I can understand coming across this post in your own independent meanderings on our forum, or in an email, and not by way of my post, and that is why I tried to make it clear by stating incomplete with emoji construction signs at the top. I am sorry if that was not clear, it meant: do not enter, it potentially reckless here, it is under construction.

[decentralion]

@Jolie_Ze

Why did you choose to reply to this when it clearly stated, “incomplete” in the title?

Why did you post it, if you don’t want people to reply?

@Jolie_Ze

The new channel would be weighted like a props channel (again, this is incomplete and that may or may not be reflected yet in the config depending on which iteration you’ve seen since this is actively under construction on and off this post) so that should alleviate your concerns since writers of props only take a very small fraction of cred for a post.

This partly addresses concern 1, but concerns 2 (incentive to propose work that never gets done) and 3 (centralizing power in Core) are unaddressed.

[Jolie_Ze]

Because there is no “save draft” function in the forum. I struggle with posting here and was trying it out, trying to set up a clear boundary so I could continue to work on something new to me that left me running into issues (like not being able to get images to show up and needing to use the forum to continue to troubleshoot forum-specific tech issues in addition to learning about our json).

Why can’t you be generous enough to respect my boundaries whether or not you know the reasons behind them? Care to answer my questions with something other than a question?

Why did you reply to an incomplete proposal with an explicit ask for graceful technical support only?

[decentralion]

@Jolie_Ze

Why can’t you be generous enough to respect my boundaries whether or not you know the reasons behind them? Care to answer my questions with something other than a question?

There were no stated asks or boundaries in your post. You may have mentioned that you only want technical feedback in a Discord message, but it’s not reasonable to expect people reading the forums to have read every message in Discord–a big point of the forums is to be higher signal, lower noise, so people with less time to spend can still chime in on important questions. Since the expectation of Discourse is that it’s a public forum with public discussion, and every other change to the Cred weights has inspired lively (and sometimes heated) discussion, it’s reasonable to expect the same would be true for new proposals.

If you want private drafts that are not for public consumption, you might find a tool like Google docs more suited to your needs.

[AL0YSI0US]

@Jolie_Ze

Because there is no “save draft” function in the forum.

Discourse saves your drafts in real time with an autosave feature.

Try responding to a topic but not posting it, then close the window… next come back and see if you have a draft visible.

I have a few drafts in this forum, you can even post a response to another page on accident i have almost done it. Watch out for that ahhhhhh

If you navigate to another page while writing a response you can post your response to the page you are visiting instead. For example when I was reading LBS posts on sociocracy in three parts I was navigating between them as I read through…I read things more than once…I almost posted a reply to the second story on the first story. It will ask you if you are sure if you want to post this way but you gotta be paying attention, I almost said yes. I hope this helps.

[Jolie_Ze]

Thanks for being so helpful! It’s getting stuffy in here.