Proposal Evaluation Committee

Biltong

Biltong

Active member
Pre-Proposal: Proposal Evaluation Committee​
Edited 17/6/05 Version 10?
Original 17/4/23 : https://goo.gl/fN8z7E
Discussion Thread: https://goo.gl/HsOLVw

Proposal Owner: Biltong
[email protected]

Project name: Proposal Evaluation Committee

Description and Goal Statement:

Problem:
Good proposals are lost through MNO fatigue. Once we have hundreds of proposals per week more will be 'lost'

Solution:
A group of Community members organized in a Proposal Evaluation Committee that:
1. Recruits and trains suitable community members to Evaluate and Prioritise Proposals;
2. Helps proposal owners to prepare a professional proposal;
3. Evaluates ALL proposals, taking in account community feedback and
4. Prepares a Prioritised Short List of Proposals as well as Reports on all Proposals for final perusal and voting by the MNO’s.​

Benefits:
All Proposals are inspected by trained evaluators – None are lost.
All Originators are helped to prepare their Proposals so that Good Ideas are not discarded because of TLDR, bad presentation etc.
Prevents MNO burnout. MNO’s receive a Prioritised Short List of Proposals as well as Reports which will enable them to concentrate on their areas of expertise and cut out wasting time on junk/high risk/scam proposals.
Eventually this will enable us to canvass for and obtain Proposals from all over the world.​

Cost:
Three Months: April/May/June 2017 preparing and testing – for free
Only once the concept is proven will this Proposal be placed.​

Cycle starting 6 July 2017
45 Dash split equally amongst Team
Total: 45 Dash​

Month 2 Cycle starting Aug 4
Once we have an idea of the hours involved we will approach babygiraffe and minotaur for advice re fair payment and propose accordingly.​

Team
6 MNO's. > 220 Proposals evaluated already. Degrees in: Accounting; Computer Science; Economics; Environmental Management; Mathematics; Spanish; Drama; Biochemistry; Neuroscience; Foreign Languages (International Trade).
Benglian: 16 years in gaming. Current: Head of Payments iGaming & payments processor integrations.
Biltong: Miner; TV series director; 20+ Years business owner.
Chosen: 20+ Years: Commercial software/web developer (management and marketing) 5+ Years: business owner.
Leonidas: Official French Translator for Dash; Created blog Ranked 1st in 'list of influencers' by Samsung. 2 Years Digital Signage field.
Name3: Evaluating businesses for investment + exploratory evolutionary microbiology lab = above average analysis skills.
Semarg: 15 years in finance and banking in Russia, I know how money works.
Syntheist: 12 years: writing funding proposals; producing & directing plays; community organizer.
Tallyho: 10 years in a high street bank ; tax advisor in Spain; administrate an internet forum.
See PEC Organization https://goo.gl/dZvadz
​
Stakeholders
Dash community and especially the MNO's and Proposal Owners.
​
Project Scope Statement
Project Purpose /Business Justification
As the price of Dash climbs there are more and more Pre-Proposals every month.
Good proposals are lost through MNO fatigue. "Too long to read - I simply vote 'No'" is a familiar comment.
Once we have hundreds of proposals per week more will be 'lost'.
Scam and high risk/low value proposals might slip through since too few MNO's have the time to do proper vetting or evaluation of large numbers of proposals.
Objectives
See Description & Goal Statement above
Key Deliverables:
Reports on each Pre-Proposal to be delivered for scrutiny starting near the start of each cycle. See PEC Report Template https://goo.gl/n3QXWw
List of Prioritized Pre-Proposals to be delivered at the end of each cycle for scrutiny.
Scope
Pre-proposals that are more than $250 worth of Dash. Dash Force will manage those below.
Dash Core and any of the other already established DAO's like Dash Force fall outside the scope.
Whether future DAO proposals will fall in the scope will be discussed with babygiraffe and minotaur.
Whether MNO's should vote for or against a proposal is outside the scope.
The PEC will only highlight deficiencies/positive aspects we found and give a rating according to the PEC Evaluator Guidelines https://goo.gl/Futw1d
The MNO's must decide themselves how they vote.​

Project Milestones and Schedule
Start of cycle Pre-Proposals divided amongst evaluators
Evaluators post and update Reports as Proposal Owners adjust their Pre-Proposals until 5 days before end of cycle.
Prioritised List of Proposals posted at end of cycle.
See PEC Road Map Summary https://goo.gl/TD6dtw

Success Criteria
Evaluators prevent scams and help to improve Pre-Proposals so that all necessary information is provided for the MNO's to make informed decisions.
Prioritised List and Reports give MNO's an idea of which proposals to concentrate on if their time is limited.​

Major Known Risks
MNO's find proposals prepared according to the Dash Project Proposal Template too long to read. - Risk high (Note: PEC using the existing template https://goo.gl/m0jgfS)
Evaluators find work excessive and too many resign for the PEC to function - Risk Low.
Most MNO's ignore PEC reports and List - Risk Low
Major faults in PEC Organization/Guidelines result in community losing complete faith in PEC - risk Low

Constraints
None at this moment - Loss of most Evaluators could prove a problem.

External Dependencies
None

Communication Strategy
Evaluator Reports will be posted on the relevant Pre-Proposal thread in Dash Forum and final Report below the actual Proposal in Dash Central.
Reports will contain the evaluator input regarding necessary changes and questions that the proposal owner needs to address.
Prioritised List of Evaluated Proposals will be published on Dash Forum and Dash Force News and links on all Dash media.
Top Evaluator will act as central communicator to the community.
​
Reviews Planned
Master Evaluators will continuously review all Reports of evaluators under his supervision.
Top Evaluator will review work of Master Evaluators
All PEC members encouraged to provide feedback at all time regarding necessary changes.
End of each cycle PEC internal review to improve organisation/methods/guidelines etc.
Dash Force has indicated a willingness to periodically review all functions of the PEC.
​
 
Last edited:
I am not really into centralizing the descentralization, but we could give better guidelines and practices for proposal creators. Something like:|
- Dont ask for 100% of the project
- Dont ask for more than 3 months period
- Breakdown the budget
- Pre-propose on the forum
- Participate on #proposal AMA
...etc

But pretty bad when u give someone a stick
 
With 10 (edit) proposals a day you can rely on community and MNO input only, but when it gets to 50 or more a day it becomes tedious work and you'll have to pay people to do it. Read the detail and you'll see that it's more decentralized than hiring developers,buss managers etc., which we are already doing since we have no choice. The MNO's appoint and 'un-appoint' valuators. They only serve short terms and come from the community. We are looking at a Billion $ business in the near future and if we rely on volunteers only, ideas will be lost. Evaluations will have to be done on a more professional footing.
 
Last edited:
Doesnt matter still pretty centralized in my opinion. I only counted 14 proposals this month. So maybe we should stop thinking about centralization ahead of time dont you think?
 
As you'll see in the proposal it will take at least 4 months to get up and running. We might be lucky and the bitcoin civil war might last that long, but if it gets resolved earlier and the graphs start racing upwards, the proposals will start streaming in again. I think 50 (edit) Dash per month for 4 people (Master evaluator and 2 evaluators and facilitator (edit)) to start getting all the training material; procedures and templates ready is a small cost compared to what we might lose with a single good proposal not being noticed. I wonder if that has not happened already. Come-on 50 (edit) Dash is peanuts - good prep work takes time.

There are no Guidelines for evaluators. We will need quite a lot of prep up front (edit)
 
Last edited:
JZA said:
Doesnt matter still pretty centralized in my opinion....
Click to expand...
Hi JZA
Yep - I do know where you are coming from. The 1st time I heard that Dash was hiring developers I was also shocked, but then I realized they had no choice.

We won't have to hire outsiders as Evaluators. They will be recruited from the community and I don't think paying someone 10 (edit) Dash means you are actually hiring them in any case :rolleyes: They will be doing it for the good of the community. - I think there are more than enough people in the community with enough diverse skills to handle the different categories. In time, when they have proven their worth they might get paid more, but that is for the future and the MNO's to decide.

But keep the crits coming - they are valuable - forces me to think and explain the committee better (I hope)
 
Last edited:
Well just that, go back to the drawing board and think of a descentralized fashion to solve the issue, I think we all share the same disapointment on how centralized systems failed us to go back to them after we have a very creative MN network that allow both, descentralization as well as private way of doing things.
I would think maybe the steem way, of 'rewarding' curators that can rise to the top thanks to the traction the post gets. But even then we are talking basically of a 'third masternode-like' network. But curators are not a title, but just the role they played on a succesful thread.
 
In other threads I voiced my willingness to pay people to evaluate proposals, might as well be a "committee".

But JZA has a point. If we could somehow gamify proposal evaluation in a form of interactive site... for example, one section could be a vetting checklist where each participant says which information they have verified and how they did it, and they would get "points" for their effort; another could be make a summary of the proposal and each summary be voted on for conciseness and accuracy; another could be a comparison between proposals with similar goals; a cost/benefit analysis including market price quotes for services... It could be done without needing to "elect" specific people to "jobs positions".

So, you get my drift. Each task completed would get points for the one who did it, but only if it's accurate (was the top voted / wasn't challenged or passed the challenge). Then a month or so later the "points" would be paid out in dash.

Just brainstorming here. I would still support this idea, as I would a proposal that said "I / my team will evaluate all proposals for you for X Dash".
 
JZA said:
Well just that, go back to the drawing board and think of a descentralized fashion to solve the issue,...
Click to expand...
Thanx again jza,
Sorry No - Can't think of a more decentralized way of doing it. :eek: You are worried that this is a centralized system, but I don't think it's centralized at all. Or at least not anymore than the existing MN proposal voting system. MN's will vote for the appointment of the evaluators just as they now vote for proposals - no different. The only difference is that they will be given prioritised lists from which to choose from. If they have the time and inclination they can look at the other proposals or applicants whenever they want to and vote them up like they are doing now. They will always have the final say.

If they feel an evaluator is not doing a good enough job, they simply don't have to agree to budget (edit) next month. They are also the ones who will choose and appoint the evaluators in the first place. I just don't see how that is any different or more centralized than the existing system.

JZA said:
... maybe the steem way, of 'rewarding' curators that can rise to the top thanks to the traction the post gets. But even then we are talking basically of a 'third masternode-like' network...
Click to expand...
It is an idea, but I don't think it's necessary to introduce any code or websites or whatever. Evaluators will rise up through the ranks depending on performance. Their own peers will recommend their elevation; their supervisors (the Master Evaluators) and the Master Nodes will choose who goes to the next level depending of performance and recommendations:

" Master Evaluators
1. Rise from the ranks of the Evaluators through periodic (6 monthly) Evaluator votes combined with their Master Evaluator (supervisor) recommendation.
2. Evaluated and included in the short list to the Master Nodes by the Top Evaluator.
3. Appointed by the Master Nodes Operators."

The only new material that will be needed is Guidelines (edit) for the evaluators and I believe these will be needed in any case for whatever system is chosen to be truly efficient.

At the same time I'm open to any system that will be an improvement on the existing system. I get worried when a MN says he simply votes NO when a proposal is too long or complicated. And more than likely I will do the same if I have a mountain of proposals to slog through. Something needs to be done and I think the simpler and least disruptive the better.
 
Last edited:
lynx said:
In other threads I voiced my willingness to pay people to evaluate proposals, might as well be a "committee".

But JZA has a point. If we could somehow gamify proposal evaluation in a form of interactive site... for example, one section could be a vetting checklist where each participant says which information they have verified and how they did it, and they would get "points" for their effort; another could be make a summary of the proposal and each summary be voted on for conciseness and accuracy; another could be a comparison between proposals with similar goals; a cost/benefit analysis including market price quotes for services... It could be done without needing to "elect" specific people to "jobs positions"....
Click to expand...

Ahh - yes very close to what I have in mind, except I don't think we'll need another website - just Guidelines (edit). and I do think a 'specialist' who comes from a specific discipline and is then trained to perform analysis of proposals in that discipline, e.g. marketing, will be far better equipped to provide the best evaluations. Especially when it comes to really specialized disciplines like C++ coding; buss management; TV adds etc etc

... It could be done without needing to "elect" specific people to "jobs positions".
Click to expand...

Hmm... I know the whole thing stinks like a corporate playbook, but if we sit with a hundred proposals per day and if we want to be really efficient we will need trained specialists - I just can't think of any other approach :mad:

...Just brainstorming here. I would still support this idea, as I would a proposal that said "I / my team will evaluate all proposals for you for X Dash".
Click to expand...

Thanx - some nice ideas. I also notice that there has now been a flurry of activity regarding proposals and voting. At least the idea is getting out there that we are facing a potential problem that needs fixing.
 
Last edited:
Take it with a grain of salt...just my opinion, which might not be worth much...

I like the idea if 3 or more are created simultaneously. That helps to thwart centralization via open competition. Let the best ones win. Let more come in via other proposals too, for the same thing, if they hate the way its done enough. But to appease those worried that this will lead to or is centralization, try introducing 3 independently operating councils. And if you are going to do that, there's an easier fix to all this (although I totally wish you luck in the proposal and am not a MN owner myself, so who cares what I say):

Just get the MNs to agree to not voting on every single request, but instead categorize them and let them choose a few categories a month to vote on. Like computer guys vote on the best tech proposals, the marketing guys vote on marketing proposals, etc.

This would probably require dev help to do, but it's better, given it doesn't centralize, and instead compartmentalizes according to expertise, avoiding the inevitable problem with voting at all: democracy is based on an informal logical fallacy (the position that the opinion of the many somehow makes it more right than the minority opinion). See, this ALWAYS is a long term failure for democratic systems...eventually the mob is dead wrong, and minority expertise would have made it better. This is why prediction markets tend to be 70% more accurate than polls. Leaving aside they have something to lose on a bet, but not on a poll answer, they also bet on what they KNOW, and will answer polls on what they THINK they know but really aren't sure enough to money on.

Eventually the mob will screw up in Dash too, and expertise and specialization would have saved the day, but instead some larger group who didn't know that much, but thought they did, will overrule a smaller group that would have saved us all a giant headache and waste if time.

Now, to be fair, democratic appeal to expertise is just called "snob appeal", or just a more refined version of the popular opinion fallacy. The difference is orders of magnitude...no expertise and voting WILL end in an illogical result the larger the sample size grows...it's as sure as anything can be in probability. The same can be said for expertise and voting together too, but it will occur orders of magnitude less than it would when no expertise is consulted democratically.

I'd prefer that kind of way to deal with this long term...but short term, your idea isn't bad. And if it has like 3 independent bodies within it, I'd say it's a step toward my idea. But I didn't propose my idea, as I'm not a computer guy who would even know if that's possible or not. I just assume it is, because it's so much less amazing than stuff they already do.

Good luck!
 
Then again, this whole thing changes with Evolution...anyone with a "savings" will have partial votes, if I'm not mistaken. That makes the MNs overruled by the sheer number of consumer who vote, assuming the virtuous cycle takes off as expected. So, in the end, MN councils might work entirely different. I still like my idea though, as it still can apply to the more decentralized MN voting in Evo.
 
Skatopia said:
…just my opinion, which might not be worth much...
Click to expand...
Any opinion forces the receiver to think and that is always a good thing and especially negative ones (yours isn’t negative BTW). J

I like and agree with nearly everything you say except for:

Just get the MNs to agree to not voting on every single request, but instead categorize them and let them choose a few categories a month to vote on.
Click to expand...
MN’s will definitely hate this and getting back to what I said at the top: “Any opinion forces the receiver to think”, so I think their opinion, even in matters outside their fields of interest will be valuable in any case.

But the Proposal Evaluation Committee caters for that in any case. MN’s will receive prioritized short lists, but these lists will also be categorized: see the detail doc: “Description: Establish a Committee of paid Proposal Evaluators with the single purpose of providing a categorized and prioritized list of viable proposals to MN’s.”

In other words: an MN with knowledge in multiple fields will automatically spend more time on proposals in his/her categories of expertise, without having to try and force them.

eventually the mob is dead wrong,
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more

Eventually the mob will screw up in Dash too, and expertise and specialization would have saved the day, but instead some larger group who didn't know that much, but thought they did, will overrule a smaller group that would have saved us all a giant headache and waste if time.
Click to expand...
Hopefully a Proposal Evaluation Committee will prevent this from happening – even the ‘mob’ will have knowledge and experience in certain fields and gravitate to the Proposal Categories that interest them.

Then again, this whole thing changes with Evolution...anyone with a "savings" will have partial votes
Click to expand...
And the Proposal Evaluation Committee will cater for that as well - with no modification needed at all.

Thanx for your input - Hope I made it a bit clearer :cool:
 
I think the detail doc is the problem - people see the 3 pages of numbered points and think "I don't have time for this S..."
So what I'll do is write up a couple of short examples of how it will work and post here over the next week or so.
 
I am fine with going through many proposals, as I value this community, and will put the time in. I would still value the input of any "proposal guidance committee" and also would hope to see multiple of these groups to help MN owners that do not have the time. I do always love it when someone from the community helps compile the proposal into a TLDR or works with the proposal owner to clarify things. Understand there will always be outliers that DO have the time to go through even hundreds of proposals.
 
GuerraDiValute said:
... Understand there will always be outliers that DO have the time to go through even hundreds of proposals.
Click to expand...
Thanx Guerra - Yes and there is nothing that will prevent the MN's from doing it and voting on all proposals like always.

I also expect - especially in the beginning - that a MN will come back and say: "Why is this proposal not on the shortlist - it's good. Did you take into account feature X, Y and Z?" And the Committee will have to go back and re-evaluate it and maybe even adjust the evaluation Guidelines (edit) to cater for the overlooked features.

There will be a learning curve, but at least ALL proposals will be evaluated and MN's will receive both proposals and evaluations in a professional and logical form that will make their own evaluations much easier and faster.

I also think that once the evaluations are posted the user input will change. Users will be better informed as to what to look for in evaluating proposals and the quality of questions and feedback should improve considerably.
 
Last edited:
I agree there needs be a review committee of some sort. I've only skimmed a dozen or so and investigated two likely scam proposals - they amounted to tens of thousands lost that could have been avoided with proper due diligence (investigating the company: registered business name, trademark, copyrights, make some calls, etc.). I'm sure there's plenty more.
 
I really like this proposal and have reached out to the Op to help get something like this going ASAP. We have the funds in DashForce to sponsor this proposal and help oversee it with our resources and contacts within the community.

It may be possible to get this going in the april proposal cycle but i would like to take at least a few more weeks to hammer out all the details and get more community feedback as to best practices. It will also take some time to organize qualified evaluators but i already have a short list i will be reaching out to this weekend. We/DashForce were already working on a similar project but i really like the effort I've seen so far put into this one. We have a lot of the exact same ideas so i know we are on the same page and could work good together. I await @Biltong response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top