SourceCred

What is this category for?

Then what is the governance category for?

Governance is for deciding, at a meta-level, how we should run SourceCred. For example, under what circumstances can or should I be replaced as “Cred Executive”? What checks and balances regulate my behavior? How will we come up with a regulatory mechanism for ensuring that we do not inflate the supply of grain (¤)"

Initiatives are for prioritizing specific workstreams we can do right now. For example, if we wanted to make grain an ERC20 token, and coordinate the various work that would make that happen, we would write an initiative about it.

Concrete examples: If you think initiatives are missing a feature, write an initiative. If you think initiatives are fundamentally broken, write about it in governance.

1 Like

Gotcha.

  • governance = changing SourceCred at a meta-level
  • initiatives = initiatives within SourceCred using the current SourceCred framework

If that’s the case, then shouldn’t new features like Initiatives, artifacts, and determining cred/grain naming be proposed in the governance category for discussion and/or to achieve rough consensus?

Good clarifying question. Let me try to refine the scope of governance.

Governance is for political questions, political conflicts, and come up with strategies for resolving them. Initiatives is for proposing changes and improvements to SourceCred.

Therefore, it makes sense that my new features specs live in the initiatives category.

What do you think of this definition?

Interesting…

So then I think we should change the governance category to politics or values.

In my mind, and having engaged with lots of open source / decentralized / blockchain governance communities/projects this seems to be the norm, governance refers to proposing and deciding on changes and improvements to a protocol/community. So I think that people coming to the community will expect governance to be related to making decisions that govern the network vs conversations around general political value based conversations (which seems to be what the governance category has turned into - my bad lol)

So all that to say I’ve done a terrible job setting the tone for the governance category and it should be renamed to something else lol

Moderation note: I moved this thread into the governance category, which seemed appropriate, and it’s now fairly distinct from talking about cred-weighted roadmap prioritization.

Also, paging @s_ben for his opinion.

Having explored some of the projects a bit myself, I get what you mean about the definition of governance. However typically governance is referring to an actual governance system (e.g. the Governance Portal in Maker). But in the context of a forum, I think people will get that the governance topic is just that, a topic. It might be a little confusing actually in the beginning if we start Discourse as a makeshift governance platform until we have something else…but for now I like governance as a topic. Came here to make a governance post actually. If I see politics or values topics, my first thought wouldn’t be that the mechanics of governance systems were being discussed, but more just general debate around those topics, which could mean lots of things.