Milestone 19 Open-Gov comments by AngelaRichmondFuller
I agree with @jsilver's idea of the Custodian Groups and that the most committed researchers could be on the mCG, and the rest on bCG. I agree that it would make it inclusive and also keeps research in Daemo's DNA. It's important to ensure inclusivity, consultation, and consensus, but still have the mCG at the top of the decision-making. I also think that the mCG should be the partners or shareholders or stakeholders related to the work that has been done. I think it would also be a good idea for workers and requesters to have a stake in Daemo; how and how much would surely need discussing.
If/when Daemo ends up turning a profit, for any future work done on the platform researchers, workers and requesters should be rewarded through pay. How much and for what would need thrashing out.
I also think that we need to be up front about the fact that if we choose to go one person one vote and workers/requesters are keen to take a more business-minded approach to the platform whilst having more than 50% of the decision-making power in total, then the research element may be cut in a heartbeat. It's a scenario worth consideration.
The Leadership Board, in its current form, may be fit for purpose - time will tell - however, I am not convinced that it is a suitable structure as Daemo grows. Also, I fear that running Leadership Board Elections every 6 months or so will turn turn our supportive nurturing environment into one of competition. Elections, by nature, are not cooperative and nurturing affairs. It's worth considering what could/would happen if money and power was at stake.
If Daemo was to go with the unweighted one vote idea, what happens if/when there are 25 requesters, 100 workers and 500 researchers? And then in future, for sake of argument, there are 2000 requesters 50000 workers and 500 requesters?
Perhaps it should be 33.33% for each group - requesters, workers and researchers - with some sort of minimum threshold for being given the opportunity to vote. I suppose then, we'd need to keep the same sort of percentages in the number of bodies that make up the Leadership Board, or Custodian Group.
Will it always be the case that the platform developers will also be researchers? Thinking ahead, might there be any other salaried roles that will be done by folks who are not researchers? How would they fit into this system? How/where would they get a vote?
If the participants think of the page ranking system is fit for purpose and works well, then perhaps we could run a vote allocation survey at the end of each week. A minimum threshold could be determined from that. Or maybe others have good ideas on this that would better suit this purpose?
In my opinion, the Leadership Board should be responsible for some concrete Business Planning : - short term (3 month) and long term (3-5 year) Business Plan including value proposition, market segment, target customer, analysis of the competition, etc. - Financial Plan - Competitor analysis - Marketing Plan (to be discussed tomorrow at the Marketing hangout :smile: ) - the coordination of the development of a Business Model Canvas (take a look at https://canvanizer.com/canvas/MLx98BbW4Fk) to develop/communicate the vision - outline Daemo's story (such as http://www.inc.com/magazine/201402/adam-bluestein/sara-blakely-how-i-got-started.html)
The target market segment and minimum viable product need to be identified asap. We should start by focussing on a well defined area and then expand once we know for certain that the platform can operate.
I would also like to suggest again, that we look at keeping the reputation specific to the category of work rather than a holistic rating of person. Technically, is it possible with the way the platform is currently set up? Especially if we start small, perhaps with offering work of only one or two types, and grow gradually (ie. when we know we're good - very very good - at those)?
In this way, we could also work towards building sample templates for task categories as we go and then gradually add them to the pool of task types for work on Daemo.
We could also revisit ways of onboarding new workers (pass benchmarking task? interview? portfolio?). Growing the platform in this way will also make things like leveling/ranking workers' skills would be more manageable.