intersubjectivity is the relation or intersection between people’s cognitive perspectives.
consensus is a a general agreement.
Intersubjective consensus is consensus at the intersection of peoples perspectives.
By sharing multiple viewpoints, a group of humans are able to figure out where they are aligned and they are not. (or perhaps they are partially aligned)
As S14 budgeting is upon us, I would like to facilitate more information sharing + intersubjective consensus creation among stewards by allowing them to clearly articulate what way they are voting + why. More informed stewards + constituents creates more legitimacy IMO.
To achieve that, I’m copying Kris and Kyle. Kris and Kyle created voter guides ( 12 ) which explain which way they are voting and why in S13. I’ve found that voter guides was an effective way for them to communicate a synthesis of their perspectives on the various budgets + also create accountability by summarizing which way they were voting.
To facilitate more discussion of digested budget information among stewards, I am creating a template for a voter guide for S14. I encourage you to fork it and distribute your own voter guide!
I love that we are thinking in the same concepts here. My approach was to work with the Ethelo tool to not only surface the reviews (which we have evidence that reviewers are more likely to use and finish reviews), but also to find the true intersubjective consensus.
It uses the tool we use to review grants in FDD. They tool will find the least polarizing, highest consensus answers to allow us to make collective decisions.
I think combining a tool like this to allow us to rank the importance of “thin workstream” outcomes overall would be helpful. Then we could use it to review if the amounts being requested are reasonable.
@Rebelry and @M0nkeyFl0wer are working to make one better than this implementation for us, but this FDD designed first attempt can showcase quite a bit.
Additionally, we could weight the users input in a variety of ways. For example, stewards could weighted by their health score on the report cards. Then ANYONE could participate, but only stewards are weighted to the output scores. Many other options like this could be designed.
Here are the items you had concerns with for FDD. It would be great to know if the adjustments on this new potential budget proposal would satisfy these concerns.
I think FDD should be clear on what is a part of the broad mission and what is mission-critical Does this graphic help?
I am still of the opinion that the following items are not necessary (126.4k USD):
FDD Storytellers (14.4k USD) i’m still not convinced this is needed Gone
FDD Mandate Delivery (16.5k USD) I think this can definitely be a much smaller one-off project that doesn’t cost this much either I don’t think we are communicating the extent of this role. Kish is actively taking over the synthesizing of all our info to understand if we are living up to our mandate in addition to building out dashboards. He will be putting together the entire FDD budget proposal next season. This removes a key man issue. This and oXS are crucial to how we function.
Sybil Detection DAO (60k USD) taking up 9.2% of the budget, I think if its spinning out into a DAO, it should be considered as part of mutual grants We would really like to do the discovery before asking for a mutual grant. What we can’t do is commit to a stake before the other initial governance partners arrive, cause that would kill the concept. Maybe Danilo answer here helps to explain it better.[S14 Proposal] FDD Season 14 Budget Request - #50 by danlessa
Ethelo (13k USD) should be kept separate. We did use it before in public library and I think its a great tool but it isn’t clear why FDD should be developing it. Gone, but we are finishing the already started work of integrating it to the grant review system. We needed a tool to scale our ability to review the massive number of grant applications. We tested ethelo and it worked. They have put up the risk of paying for most of the development this far. The budget was to containerize and automate some processes. Not needed, but will result in lower quality results and higher manual labor costs. (Which is confusing because we are being told to use software solutions instead of increasing manual labor!)
Reward modeling (22.5k USD) when I dived into it and its goal is “system for incentivizing reviewer participation which maintains output quality is simulated and designed” I think having a budget and paying people for work done is The new format has this in the options. This work would lead to us having a way for communities using grants 2.0 to use community curation for eligibility rather than delegation. I think that would provide communities better results in terms of their desired outcome - better allocating resources to the will of their community. (The other option is to delegate authority through their governance, but we have only seen systems with a central point of failure get corrupted a few times so I may be blowing this out of proportion!) Really though, the fundamental reason why Twitter and Facebook don’t build a system that is more representative of peoples desires in content moderation is because A - It’s cheaper to delegate B - They cant have assymentric advantage in how the system works. Reason A is why I think we need to provide this. Because it is a public digital infrastructure, no one entity will invest in it. AND we are SOOO close already!
