RunneManny triggered a very interesting provocation about the structure of the Growth bubble now that the team and tasks have expanded and management has become a bit more tricky.
Some points we would like to discuss and redesign together are:
the structure of the work streams: projects vs skill oriented. Our proposal is to change the structure to have specific skillset channels instead of projects and have people that can work on specific tasks together in one space. From social media to copywriters as an example.
Tags for members based on their skills to they can officially become part of each work stream within the bubble. In addition to the Growth tag, when finishing the Growth onaboarding form, you would be assigned to a skill based tag.
Coordinape. How to monitor, manage and evaluate who qualifies monthly. Ensure that all contributions are tracked in Dework with participation points assign so one member can manage that and publish the list and ranking as a guide before the month closing. This would require to permeate to all bubbles.
Please use this space to share all these thoughts so we can create the policy together.
I support this policy, it’s very important to have more clarity on each of these things , to help people who come in understand where they can contribute, they can all be under the growth bubble.
I’m working on the onboarding slides for growth and I think it’d be a great idea to have this.
As for coordinape I think it’s important to put specific policies around it , there has to be important process to pass the before one becomes a part of it, my experience with other DAO’s has taught me how delicate things like this can be , I suggest we have a time period and a couple of steps before one gets added to coordinape.
When a new member joins it takes a while before they get added to a payment plan, they have to go through a learning process(intro to frabric) then after wards they have to prove their commitment to the DAO by hanging around and involving themselves in general tasks I.e the tweet storm, following our page, dropping comments, engaging, referrals, e.T.c then after that team leads and onboarders (culture stewards) in each of the team reports to the community that they have been putting decent amount of energy into the DAO and then it is put up for a vote if they should be added to the compensation plan or not. this process will help them understand what the DAO IS ALL ABOUT and get used to the DAO. It will help us get real participation and balance things out. (N:B these mini general task are tied with little incentives like our token ).
There are different ways to put something like this in place. I’d be glad to help.
I support this too, the current system is flawed in a way that a person can create multiple accounts and game the coordinape by just doing one task with each account, get added to coordinape and keep allocating the gives to his/herself. There should be a defined process before a person should be added to the coordinape and the flaws should be tackled
Why I proposed this is because of how people rush to claim tasks (some that is within their skillset and some that is not), and only few people participate in the task. It’s to add more productivity to the tasks being done within the Dao.
And with tags being assigned to members on the DAO base on their skill sets, I think monitoring who gets compensated or not will be easier
From my experience, I have seen people try to game the cordinape. They could have multiple accounts to get added. And since all is required to be part of the Frabric cordinape is get a task done, people could do tasks that aren’t actually productive to the DAO, just to get added to the cordinape.
And since it’s a peer-base compensation method, it’s easy to ignore those who have actually contributed to the DAO, and share to your friends.
Mide might have some other reasons, but these are mine. And I support her idea of having steps to follow before being added.
From the mainstream of thoughts here, Mide, Manuel and RuneManny have dealt with issues as regard the coordinape being manipulated. I am new here and looking forward to be more useful, but want to point this out, the idea of coordinape has always been “Coordin-ache” for me because it puts one in a dilemma of knowing who is contributing, how they are contributing and what they have contributed. The question is, if you know contributors whose works are more visible than the other, how do you place the ones whose contributions are not visible? It’s kind of difficult to judge and puts me in a bad spot when i don’t allocate enough GIVE to someone who has been doing something magnificent underground. I don’t know how dumb this sounds, but i will suggest, instead of having a peer-based compensation, why not allocate a particular GIVE token for a task embarked on and carried out successfully i.e the number of task an individual does would determines the number of GIVE token he/she earns (whether it is a ground task on the server or Dework). I will back this discussion. Great work folks. As for my comment, please I stand to be corrected.
I agree with this, there should be a requirement or a policy that determine how and who get added to cordinape. There should be a policy to monitor consistensy and contribution to determine eligibility of new contributors. And also rune manny, mide and amadex make a valid point about how coordinape operates. It can easily be manipulated for personal gain, by simply creating another discord account.
I also strongly agree with the new structure proposal. This will make it easy to work as a group, also it will help new contributors know where they want to contribute, i feel a mix between the skill and projects structure should be applied.
Growth as a body,
social media as a sub body,
And graphics as a sub section of social media.
The tags will be very helpful because it will improve socialization and help make building team spirits and cooperation. Because i perosnally will feel comfortable talking to someone who has the same tag as i do. It is comforting for new contributors and it also aids identification. This tag shouldn’t limit what individual are allowed to participate in tho.
I support this, too. I think having a more clear and organize structure of the work streams is gonna be a great help, and especially having the skills-based tags could create better participation in the projects.
As for the Coordinape, I have personally haven’t seen all these issue in my experience but I don’t doubt they can happen and there is a risk with the numbers growing. I do agree there should be a process to be added to the circle.
I do agree on a restructure of the bubble, not sure about the coordinape part, I believe that the coordinape system is really good to give value to people that do small, yet important tasks that won’t be captured by dework or other systems.
My point is that if we link the coordinape 1:1 with dework then the first looses it’s value as we are still giving access to the same people that got already paid through dework and at the same time cutting off new members that might have contributed here and there thought the month but do not show in quantifiable manners.
Coordinape is a social retribution tool if we gate it based on tasks and rankings IMO we might not be needing it at all.
I have joined Frabric DAO only a week back, so I will comment from my experience in other DAOs (primarily Bankless). I have voted Yes for the proposal, but we need to think about projects that will require multidisciplinary teams. It is good for all writers to have their own bubble, and designers to have their own, but say for example, we are creating an external campaign that requires writers and designers to work together, then we need to find a way for them to work together and not separately.
Another thing - DAOs are permission-less, which means that I can not know anything about tokenomics but can be a part of a workgroup focused on tokenomics, and learn as I contribute. In that instance, skill-based workstreams don’t really work.
This is an interesting point.
Do you think that maybe by having a more clear policy into who can be part of the Coordinape and making that list public before hand could be a solution that meets in the middle?
Thank you @sandeepdas you brought very good points. One of the ideas I discussed with @RuneManny is that maybe we just create the tags but maintain the channels and teams focused per project or discipline.
That would allow people to connect (and tag) with others based on skill set. What do you think?