Profile of lovegrovegeorge in Optimism

Posts by lovegrovegeorge

• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: May 7, 2024, 5:05 a.m.
  Content: Hey @s_ben, fantastic reply, much appreciatee! I’ve seen SourceCred before and am a fan of what they have been working on, but not seen Govern or Armitage so will have a look at what I can find on both. There’s two factors i think that are going to be important with recording contributions. One is it will be important to minimise the time it takes for people to record them. This is what automatically recorded ones such as git commits, doc changes etc are an important starting foundation to give people a way to better visualise there contributions without them having to do much work. Without these tools the main thing that matters in a log is just a brief log about the outputs someone made. I’m recording all my contribution outputs in my own contribution logs - Contribution log | Web 3 Association. These don’t take me more than half an hour a month to do. Verifying them would mostly be looking at the git commits for my examples. I think something like this is a good simple baseline, then the next step up is something like this but with automatically recorded contributions that bring in more information and present it better. The second thing is considering what incentives are available for people to start recording these contributions. For DAO experiments that aren’t paying full time salaries it would be difficult to expect them to spend much time on recording their contributions very well. The logs need to get to a threshold of value to the contributor for them to want to spend any meaningful time recording them. The less time it takes them the lower that value requirement threshold is going to be. Per month I think it would be difficult to get someone to spend 1 hour per week on these unless there is significant value in doing it. Less than half an hour a month makes sense for me personally at the moment. In relation to politics, in a group setting there is always going to be some process for how compensation gets distributed. In a more autocratic leadership approach, people are just letting someone else decide their value, which although might be simple, it can also easily lead to exploitation, conflict with leadership and excessive leadership influence / power. In group based decisions there is more decision complexity due to the need for people to understand what everyone else has contributed. In either of these scenarios, if a contributor can’t prove the contributions they have made easily they have less ability to prove and demonstrate their value - they could rely more heavily on the observations of the people in leadership or around them. It’s due to this that it makes sense to just start with facts that are easily provable about someones contributions. Humans can still interpret the value of someones contributions as they do currently but they now have a simple source of factual information to consider that should be easier to use than before. Attestations could then be integrated on top of that baseline which add in more detail, this area needs a ton of thought though. Here are some relevant and interesting projects I currently have noted down (added Armitage and Govern in there!) tea .xyz/ armitage .xyz/ govrn .app/ gitroll .io/ docs.opensource .observer/ sourcecred .io/ dework .xyz/ Another factor worth mentioning is the different between effort and output. The starting point for logs can solely focus on outputs - what outcomes have actually been produced by different people, which can often be mapped to digitally created outcomes - but not all the time. Effort can also be tracked but it makes it more complex to both record and read this information. Effort will be needed in situations where multiple people work on the same outcome and it’s hard to break that down into a simpler subsets of that work. I am not looking to develop a separate solution for this, I would reach out to any existing projects I find first and see what I can learn from them and also see how we could collaborate. I’m trying to work out the best starting point to support the proposal of open source contributor funding. Making tooling for individual contribution logs could be a good starting point so it might well be a focus of mine moving forward. Still going through the motions thinking it through! Thanks again, and keen to chat more if you had any other thoughts :grin:
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: s_ben
  No replies yet.
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: May 1, 2024, 6:53 a.m.
  Content: Yes, healthy competition and aligned incentives! The less accurate the contribution logs are the harder it will be to group people by skill level so the more broad the groupings would be. You would expect this at the beginning in the early days of the tooling and processes. However even broad bucket groupings can still be useful just for identifying the bad actors or poor performers. The community can then more easily respond to that information. I also love the idea of contributors being able to use different skill sets or work across ideas more freely which can be difficult with idea token focused models where compensation agreements realistically need to be made with every new project that a contributor wants to help with.
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: Aryaman
  No replies yet.
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: May 1, 2024, 6:47 a.m.
  Content: Hey @Liliop.eth, so the Ethereum Attestation service could be used in the type of system being suggested here. There could be a number of systems for helping people to automatically record digital contributions and manual submission processes. Then the EAS could enable people to make attestations about those contributions to add more evidence and clarity about them. I’m just sharing the analysis for feedback at the moment but if I went down the path of trying to developer something for this suggestion i’d look to collaborate with anyone in the industry that was interested! My telegram is Telegram: Contact @georgelovegrove 1 if you wanted to chat there about your community :smile:
  Likes: 2 Replies: 1
  Likers: Liliop.eth, LauNaMu
  Replies:

  • Liliop.eth: Yeah, I think EAS resolved certification and identity, good tool to complement the flow. Sure! I’ll send you a dm
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: May 1, 2024, 6:47 a.m.
  Content: Hey @Liliop.eth, so the Ethereum Attestation service could be used in the type of system being suggested here. There could be a number of systems for helping people to automatically record digital contributions and manual submission processes. Then the EAS could enable people to make attestations about those contributions to add more evidence and clarity about them. I’m just sharing the analysis for feedback at the moment but if I went down the path of trying to developer something for this suggestion i’d look to collaborate with anyone in the industry that was interested! My telegram is Telegram: Contact @georgelovegrove if you wanted to chat there about your community :smile:
  Likes: 2 Replies: 1
  Likers: Liliop.eth, LauNaMu
  Replies:

  • Liliop.eth: Yeah, I think EAS resolved certification and identity, good tool to complement the flow. Sure! I’ll send you a dm
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: April 29, 2024, 4:21 p.m.
  Content: Appreciated @Bunnic, and yes exactly that, I am only trying to highlight what direction I think is the most logical over the long term and what could be effective at pushing more power to the edges and removing intermediaries. Lots to think about but a good enough starting discussion :grin:
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: Bunnic
  No replies yet.
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: April 29, 2024, 3:57 p.m.
  Content: Hey @Bunnic, thanks for the response and great to hear your perspective! Bunnic: In my experience, sometimes you do so much during the day that you constantly forget to list things (especially during hectic days), and it’s easy to feel that ‘you did nothing’ or see little value in tasks you completed, as they are normal and ‘part of your job’ to you, even if the value they add is there. Also, stopping after you finished to list what you did sometimes took you out of your “flow”. Since I used to work closely with a group, it was honestly easier to ask each other what we did during the day and list that, as others tended to include small things you give for granted. This helps to capture why I think there is such as a high importance of why automatically recorded contribution efforts are so important. A benefit of many digital based contributions is they should become increasingly easier to record and present. As an example for my own efforts, I only keep high level contribution logs that link to the resources and content I’ve worked on in a given month - Contribution log | Web 3 Association. Some of the digital contributions can be seen through the git commits but the presentation isn’t super friendly, this is simple solution that works for me at the moment. Things that can be automatically recorded can be stored and presented so it’s easier to see the facts. Then beyond these efforts some manual process with peer review is needed to capture other types of effort, such as the process you had already been doing with other colleagues where you share and list what you worked on. Bunnic: The opposite occurred to us during ‘calm’ days: people tend to overexplain simple tasks they did because there is this sensation of ‘I need to fill the log and make it look nice and bulky’. Also, for those who are not fully aware of what completing your tasks implies, they can overlook the amount of time and effort it takes to do the job and easily misjudge it (“oh, they only did this during the day?” and you actually had to work during lunch to complete it in time… real story btw). This seems to map more closely to daily recorded contributions which definitely does increase the cost of reviewing and verifying these that regularly. Some days you might just be trying to understand something so you have to then just explain that to others and document it down if it was a daily contribution log. In terms of cadence, I imagine somewhere between monthly, bi-weekly or weekly are likely easier starting points to capture what actual outputs you delivered and then as the tooling gets better it should become easier to see the actual contributions made more granularly. At the moment i’m suggesting monthly as the easiest starting point. Bunnic: In our case, in the end we decided to remove this practice as it fell closer to a micromanagement style we were against. In more corporate or project owner led environments where a manager and leadership are deciding your value and compensation I think this approach very quickly could turn into micromanagement and a more tense day to day environment. This would be especially the case if the management and leadership aren’t also recording their contribution efforts in the same way! I made a comparison between sports teams and corporate environments to highlight the importance of contribution logs being made public and easily accessible. Having full ownership of your own contribution log data and having these public is where the contributor really can benefit from creating a long term reputation and gain more value from their recorded contributions. These logs could then make it easier for contributors to become paid what their worth without having to prove their value each and every time to new projects they work on. It’ll also be easier for others to determine when a given contributor could be highly insightful or relevant to their own initiatives. A benefit of Web 3 ecosystems is the network itself could pay for contribution efforts directly, which removes the need for manager and leadership roles that might currently dictate what someone will be paid in many Web 2 environments and some Web 3 environments. In Web 3 environments the upper bounds for how much a contributor could be paid could be higher if they are able to prove they are a highly competent contributor. Ensuring top contributors are paid well for their efforts will be an important part of aligning the incentives so that people are rewarded when they make performant and impactful contributions. I think some of the first steps for making individual contribution logs would be to start with making tools that make it easy to see what digital contributions someone has made such as code contributions, documentation changes etc. Making those easy to view in a single place is a good foundation for the next layer of peer reviews and attestations and community reviews. Will obviously take some time to build these solutions ofcourse but the upside should be that a large amount of power is pushed to the edges. If you’re a great contributor then you should be paid well for those contributions! :smile:
  Likes: 1 Replies: 0
  Likers: Bunnic
  No replies yet.
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: April 29, 2024, 12:21 p.m.
  Content: Appreciated @Bunnic, and yes exactly that, I am only trying to highlight what direction I think is the most logical over the long term and what could be effective at pushing more power to the edges and removing intermediaries. Lots to think about but a good enough starting discussion :grin:
  Likes: 2 Replies: 0
  Likers: Bunnic, HannahDEVOP
  No replies yet.
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: April 29, 2024, 11:57 a.m.
  Content: Hey @Bunnic, thanks for the response and great to hear your perspective! Bunnic: In my experience, sometimes you do so much during the day that you constantly forget to list things (especially during hectic days), and it’s easy to feel that ‘you did nothing’ or see little value in tasks you completed, as they are normal and ‘part of your job’ to you, even if the value they add is there. Also, stopping after you finished to list what you did sometimes took you out of your “flow”. Since I used to work closely with a group, it was honestly easier to ask each other what we did during the day and list that, as others tended to include small things you give for granted. This helps to capture why I think there is such as a high importance of why automatically recorded contribution efforts are so important. A benefit of many digital based contributions is they should become increasingly easier to record and present. As an example for my own efforts, I only keep high level contribution logs that link to the resources and content I’ve worked on in a given month - Contribution log | Web 3 Association 1 . Some of the digital contributions can be seen through the git commits but the presentation isn’t super friendly, this is simple solution that works for me at the moment. Things that can be automatically recorded can be stored and presented so it’s easier to see the facts. Then beyond these efforts some manual process with peer review is needed to capture other types of effort, such as the process you had already been doing with other colleagues where you share and list what you worked on. Bunnic: The opposite occurred to us during ‘calm’ days: people tend to overexplain simple tasks they did because there is this sensation of ‘I need to fill the log and make it look nice and bulky’. Also, for those who are not fully aware of what completing your tasks implies, they can overlook the amount of time and effort it takes to do the job and easily misjudge it (“oh, they only did this during the day?” and you actually had to work during lunch to complete it in time… real story btw). This seems to map more closely to daily recorded contributions which definitely does increase the cost of reviewing and verifying these that regularly. Some days you might just be trying to understand something so you have to then just explain that to others and document it down if it was a daily contribution log. In terms of cadence, I imagine somewhere between monthly, bi-weekly or weekly are likely easier starting points to capture what actual outputs you delivered and then as the tooling gets better it should become easier to see the actual contributions made more granularly. At the moment i’m suggesting monthly as the easiest starting point. Bunnic: In our case, in the end we decided to remove this practice as it fell closer to a micromanagement style we were against. In more corporate or project owner led environments where a manager and leadership are deciding your value and compensation I think this approach very quickly could turn into micromanagement and a more tense day to day environment. This would be especially the case if the management and leadership aren’t also recording their contribution efforts in the same way! I made a comparison between sports teams and corporate environments to highlight the importance of contribution logs being made public and easily accessible. Having full ownership of your own contribution log data and having these public is where the contributor really can benefit from creating a long term reputation and gain more value from their recorded contributions. These logs could then make it easier for contributors to become paid what their worth without having to prove their value each and every time to new projects they work on. It’ll also be easier for others to determine when a given contributor could be highly insightful or relevant to their own initiatives. A benefit of Web 3 ecosystems is the network itself could pay for contribution efforts directly, which removes the need for manager and leadership roles that might currently dictate what someone will be paid in many Web 2 environments and some Web 3 environments. In Web 3 environments the upper bounds for how much a contributor could be paid could be higher if they are able to prove they are a highly competent contributor. Ensuring top contributors are paid well for their efforts will be an important part of aligning the incentives so that people are rewarded when they make performant and impactful contributions. I think some of the first steps for making individual contribution logs would be to start with making tools that make it easy to see what digital contributions someone has made such as code contributions, documentation changes etc. Making those easy to view in a single place is a good foundation for the next layer of peer reviews and attestations and community reviews. Will obviously take some time to build these solutions ofcourse but the upside should be that a large amount of power is pushed to the edges. If you’re a great contributor then you should be paid well for those contributions! :smile:
  Likes: 3 Replies: 0
  Likers: Bunnic, HannahDEVOP, s_ben
  No replies yet.
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: April 29, 2024, 11:57 a.m.
  Content: Hey @Bunnic, thanks for the response and great to hear your perspective! Bunnic: In my experience, sometimes you do so much during the day that you constantly forget to list things (especially during hectic days), and it’s easy to feel that ‘you did nothing’ or see little value in tasks you completed, as they are normal and ‘part of your job’ to you, even if the value they add is there. Also, stopping after you finished to list what you did sometimes took you out of your “flow”. Since I used to work closely with a group, it was honestly easier to ask each other what we did during the day and list that, as others tended to include small things you give for granted. This helps to capture why I think there is such as a high importance of why automatically recorded contribution efforts are so important. A benefit of many digital based contributions is they should become increasingly easier to record and present. As an example for my own efforts, I only keep high level contribution logs that link to the resources and content I’ve worked on in a given month - Contribution log | Web 3 Association. Some of the digital contributions can be seen through the git commits but the presentation isn’t super friendly, this is simple solution that works for me at the moment. Things that can be automatically recorded can be stored and presented so it’s easier to see the facts. Then beyond these efforts some manual process with peer review is needed to capture other types of effort, such as the process you had already been doing with other colleagues where you share and list what you worked on. Bunnic: The opposite occurred to us during ‘calm’ days: people tend to overexplain simple tasks they did because there is this sensation of ‘I need to fill the log and make it look nice and bulky’. Also, for those who are not fully aware of what completing your tasks implies, they can overlook the amount of time and effort it takes to do the job and easily misjudge it (“oh, they only did this during the day?” and you actually had to work during lunch to complete it in time… real story btw). This seems to map more closely to daily recorded contributions which definitely does increase the cost of reviewing and verifying these that regularly. Some days you might just be trying to understand something so you have to then just explain that to others and document it down if it was a daily contribution log. In terms of cadence, I imagine somewhere between monthly, bi-weekly or weekly are likely easier starting points to capture what actual outputs you delivered and then as the tooling gets better it should become easier to see the actual contributions made more granularly. At the moment i’m suggesting monthly as the easiest starting point. Bunnic: In our case, in the end we decided to remove this practice as it fell closer to a micromanagement style we were against. In more corporate or project owner led environments where a manager and leadership are deciding your value and compensation I think this approach very quickly could turn into micromanagement and a more tense day to day environment. This would be especially the case if the management and leadership aren’t also recording their contribution efforts in the same way! I made a comparison between sports teams and corporate environments to highlight the importance of contribution logs being made public and easily accessible. Having full ownership of your own contribution log data and having these public is where the contributor really can benefit from creating a long term reputation and gain more value from their recorded contributions. These logs could then make it easier for contributors to become paid what their worth without having to prove their value each and every time to new projects they work on. It’ll also be easier for others to determine when a given contributor could be highly insightful or relevant to their own initiatives. A benefit of Web 3 ecosystems is the network itself could pay for contribution efforts directly, which removes the need for manager and leadership roles that might currently dictate what someone will be paid in many Web 2 environments and some Web 3 environments. In Web 3 environments the upper bounds for how much a contributor could be paid could be higher if they are able to prove they are a highly competent contributor. Ensuring top contributors are paid well for their efforts will be an important part of aligning the incentives so that people are rewarded when they make performant and impactful contributions. I think some of the first steps for making individual contribution logs would be to start with making tools that make it easy to see what digital contributions someone has made such as code contributions, documentation changes etc. Making those easy to view in a single place is a good foundation for the next layer of peer reviews and attestations and community reviews. Will obviously take some time to build these solutions ofcourse but the upside should be that a large amount of power is pushed to the edges. If you’re a great contributor then you should be paid well for those contributions! :smile:
  Likes: 3 Replies: 0
  Likers: Bunnic, HannahDEVOP, s_ben
  No replies yet.
• Individual Contribution Logs - Contribution verification, reputation building, improved funding decisions, SSI adoption and more! by lovegrovegeorge - No Role
  Posted on: April 29, 2024, 10:35 a.m.
  Content: contribution-logs-header 1500 × 500 50 . 3 KB Individual contribution logs represent a record of an individuals contribution efforts. Some Web 3 ecosystems use a process for verifying contribution efforts within their own grants process. This verification process can help with protecting the ecosystems treasury assets by checking that the funding is being used as intended. Contribution efforts could be grouped together by using a milestone approach or by using time intervals such as monthly. Alternatively contribution efforts could also be recorded by each individual in monthly time intervals. After looking at the problems and opportunities for making group based contribution logs as well as individual contribution logs, we identified that individual contribution logs were the most promising approach worth considering. As well as verifying contribution efforts the individual contribution log approach also had a number of other use cases that could be highly valuable for contributors and Web 3 ecosystems. Advantages of individual contribution logs Improved contribution verification - It is more difficult to hide poor contribution performance if efforts are recorded individually and at the end of every month. Individual contribution logs make it easier to verify which contributors have been making sufficient contribution efforts. Improved decision making - If contribution logs are recorded monthly and are focused on individuals contribution efforts the measurability of these logs can be much higher than the group based approaches. This makes it easier for voters to identify the best and worst performers and also can make it easier for them to compare contributors across the ecosystem. Retaining top performers - Some ideas and teams won’t produce the intended outcomes. Individual contribution logs can help with identifying the top performers in different teams that might have not generated much impact. Individual contribution logs could help with making it easier to for voters to see what actually happened. Higher self awareness & accountability - Contributors would be able to more easily review the contribution efforts of other people in the ecosystem and use that information to become more aware of how performant each contributor is. This information can help contributors with becoming more accountable for achieving a similar or higher level of performance. Empowers individual contributors - Individual contribution logs can help to empower contributors by making it easier for them to demonstrate their competencies and performance. Their contribution logs can help them with building a reputation in the ecosystem and wider industry that can make it easier for them to receive future funding and fair compensation for their skill level. Removed intermediaries - Individual contribution logs can help with reducing the influence of certain individuals and project owners from determining someone’s compensation in group based working environments. Contribution logs can help with making it easier for someone to demonstrate themselves what their value is within group working environments. Flexible information usage - More detail about the ideas that are being executed can be highlighted in someones contribution log. These logs could include which milestone would be relevant to the contribution efforts. This added context means that a collection of different peoples individual contribution logs could help with creating project based information such as the total contribution efforts towards an idea in the last month or the amount of contribution efforts that have been made towards a certain project milestone. More granularity and detail about each persons contributions efforts means that it can become easier to group and layer this information into different formats that could be more useful and insightful to the viewer. Opportunities for individual contribution logs Open source contribution data - The more that individual contribution logs are used over time the more valuable the information becomes. Monthly recordings of individual contribution efforts are much more measurable than the alternative approaches. Individual contribution logs can be used for making historical comparisons as the ecosystem evolves and grows over time. Self sovereign identity adoption - Individual contribution logs can be tied to a persons identity. Contribution logs could be a powerful use case for increasing the adoption of self sovereign identity solutions. Trust based networks - Verifiable contribution data could be used to create some form of trust based network that people use to prove their competency and reliability. Communities could start using this information as a form of identification and a way to trust certain individuals due to the reputation they’ve built and the common connections they share. Resources Read our full analysis, or watch our video summaries, that cover contribution verification and contribution logs: Contribution verification 1 Contribution verification approaches Experimentation in Optimism Individual contribution logs could be integrated into the existing grants process or be used by individuals in the ecosystem as an evidence based way to start building up their own reputation. Idea funding and contributor funding could both experiment with individual contribution logs. Further investigation These is an opportunity to create more tooling that could enable individual contributors to easily record and present their contribution efforts. Contribution logs could become increasingly useful and reliable for contributors to build their reputation in the ecosystem and for voters when making funding decisions. In the comings months the Web 3 Association is going to look at what tooling already exists that could be used and then explore what new tools could be created to make it easier to record and present contribution efforts. We’re especially interested in improving the exposure and presentation of code contributions, this is an area of high relevance to our open source contributor proposal (docs. contributors .org/proposal/open-source-contributors) that has been recently shared. Community discussion Share any feedback and thoughts you have around the topic of contribution verification and the different approaches we’ve explored in our analysis. Eager to hear any different perspectives or other approaches and analysis we might be missing that could improve our own understanding and improve our analysis further!
  Likes: 0 Replies: 0
  No likes yet.
  No replies yet.