Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The ATF (Heuristics (Grants / Subgrants framework (Grantsmanship (https…

- - - - • QA review procedures;
        
        QA
        
        (QA) activities include a planned system of review procedures conducted by personnel not directly involved in the inventory compilation/development process. Reviews, preferably by independent third parties, should be performed upon a finalized inventory following the implementation of QC procedures. Reviews verify that data quality objectives were met, ensure that the inventory represents the best possible estimates of emissions and sinks given the current state of scientific knowledge and data available, and support the effectiveness of the QC program.
      - • General QC procedures (Tier 1);
        
        QC
        
        Quality Control (QC) is a system of routine technical activities, to measure and control the quality of the inventory as it is being developed. The QC system is designed to:
        
        (iii) Document and archive inventory material and record all QC activities.
        
        (ii) Identify and address errors and omissions;
        
        (i) Provide routine and consistent checks to ensure data integrity, correctness, and completeness;
        
        QC activities include general methods such as accuracy checks on data acquisition and calculations and the use of approved standardized procedures for emission calculations, measurements, estimating uncertainties, archiving information and reporting.
        Higher tier QC activities include technical reviews of source categories, activity and emission factor data, and methods.
      - An inventory agency responsible for coordinating QA/QC activities;
      - • A QA/QC plan;
      - category-specific QC procedures (Tier 2);
      - • Reporting, documentation, and archiving procedures.
- - - - Rights
      - Responsabilities
    - - Rights
      - Responsabilities
    - - Rights
      - Responsabilities
    - - Rights
      - Responsabilities
    - - Responsabilities
      - Rights
- - - - STACK
        
        Arc
        It’s a library of smart contracts implemented on the Ethereum blockchain, each of which represent functional elements that can be mixed, matched, and even modified to create the complete governance protocol for any given DAO.
        
        Arc.js
        Arc.js is a JavaScript library that lets front-end developers easily build applications on top of Arc without being familiar with Solidity or the blockchain.
        
        The ArcHives
        The ArcHives are a set of shared registries designed to enhance interoperability among the DAOs and Dapps utilizing Arc and Arc.js.
  - - - Aragon
        
        Nest - grant program review
        
        Manifest
      - Colony
      - DGOV
      - ECSA
      - Giveth
        
        DAC
      - Thetta.io
      - Govurn
      - Otonomos
      - Harbour Project
      - GovBlocks
      - District0x
      - Monero
        
        https://unhashed.com/cryptocurrency-news/monero-model-decentralized-governance/
        
        https://medium.com/coinmonks/cryptoasset-research-monero-xmr-7a67709b4a14
      - Locus
      - Decred
      - Digix
        
        https://medium.com/@slauson/vote-no-on-digix-carbon-vote-2-6bfc0a2bd116
        
        https://medium.com/@Digix/carbon-vote-2-ama-on-reddit-and-discord-addressing-concerns-846198130016
      - DASH
        
        https://www.dash.org/2017/03/08/PRDecentralized.html
      - Tezos
      - MakerDAO
    - - Game theory attacks
      - Non-representative
      - Centralisation
      - vote buying
    - - Rapid evolvement and acceptance of needed technical improvements
      - Reduced costs and time for coordination
      - Protection from instability and chain splits
      - Protection from becoming too de-facto centralized (see The Tyranny of Structurelessness)
- - - - Instrumentalization/scaffolding
        
        Constitution
        
        Cookbook
      - Proposal writing
        
        template
        
        The proposer should choose how they are to be held accountable beforehand.
        And that choice should be taken in consideration during the voting process.
        
        Argument Validation - Group Thought
      - Pitch + Feedbacks
        
        Discord
    - - Certification Framework
        
        QA / QC
      - Passive, proposer goes to ATF / appoints auditors
      - Self-certification
    - - Issues
        
        What when great proposals don’t pass?
        
        How much reputation to ask?
        
        fixed number or fixed %?
        
        Where is the fine line between persistence and being pushy?
      - Risk assessment
        
        KPI
      - Objectives Alignment
        
        objectives curation system
  - - - Weekly Updates
      - Documentation
        
        The initial proposal document should have links to all subsequent documents and deliverables (like a merkle tree)
      - Diligence
        
        how to track
        
        if things go south, then what? (arbitration as last resort)
    - - Avaliation
        
        Good x Bad
        
        Thorough Arbitration
        
        Delivered x not Delivered
        
        Rep loss / Offboarding / Fostering
        
        Late x On time
        
        agile arbitration on the 3rd time
    - - This should be active but decentralizated, the auditors should actively scrutinize the final work and trigger arbitrations if needed
      - Standardizing QA / QC
    - - 1st level - localized
      - last level - DAOstack Team
      - 2rd - exotic (like the ATF)
      - 3th - community wide
      - Tools?