Loomio
Mon 17 Dec 2018 3:09PM

Conditions for Whitelisting Reviewers

L Loie Public Seen by 158

Lindsay and I talked about a couple things to improve the Milestone Reviewers flow a month or so back, and I want to bring this here just to get approval. .

Tension:

We have more users hopping onto the platform and therefore need to eliminate easy points of newbie failure like ending up with a dud reviewer.

It will be a great help when we have someone dedicated to gatekeeping the reviewers list, but I don't know who that is yet. :thinking:

See the proposal for all that we can decide on now!

L

Poll Created Mon 17 Dec 2018 3:16PM

Half Life for Reviewers Closed Mon 24 Dec 2018 3:02PM

There is a half-life on each reviewer’s existence on the whitelist.

We suggest that after 6 months people are automatically removed and if they wish to continue it will be super easy to add them back on. I don’t know if there’s any way to automate the half-life to be conditional to their activity as a reviewer, but that would be awesome. Even if it doesn’t make sense to automate the half-life in the DApp, we could just have an agreement that every 6 months reviewers are cleared out if they aren’t active.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 50.0% 4 BS DA L MR
Abstain 37.5% 3 D GG K
Disagree 12.5% 1 KI
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 12 Q E R C EAD OJ V G JB D AA JF

8 of 20 people have voted (40%)

BS

Bowen Sanders
Agree
Mon 17 Dec 2018 10:21PM

We just need to make sure that if we off-board someone, we bring someone on :)

K

Kay
Abstain
Tue 18 Dec 2018 12:54AM

Would like to find a better mechanic to remove reviewers than auto-remove. Are there any other options on the table? Can we build an oracle around this that tracks reviewer activity?

D

Dani
Abstain
Tue 18 Dec 2018 2:40PM

I like where we're going with this and there are some assumptions to check. Will it really be super easy to add someone back in? Shouldn't we give Reviewers the ability to opt in before they are removed? What happens to pending milestones when someone is removed, this feels like there's a big risk of messing up someones time-critical approval process in the future. It could be a lot easier to have an accountability for maintaining the list first to develop a process.

DA

Don Adams
Agree
Tue 18 Dec 2018 6:55PM

This would very cool as an optional feature that is available to all campaigns

GG

Griff Green
Abstain
Thu 20 Dec 2018 5:37PM

needs a more solid proposal

KI

Kris is
Disagree
Thu 20 Dec 2018 5:37PM

don't think this needs to be automated - prob easier to see if the people still are ok to do this. no need to automate everything :)

L

Poll Created Mon 17 Dec 2018 3:19PM

Pre-whitelisting interrogation Closed Sun 23 Dec 2018 3:02PM

They are sent these req's and confirm them before being added:

"Being added to the reviewers list on the Dapp requires 3 things:
- You have made a milestone before and completed it to “Paid”.
- You have familiarized yourself with the Milestone Tutorial and understand how to check a milestone for all the necessary parts, and which errors are “blocking”.
- You have enough time to review all the milestones proposed to you quickly (within one week of them being proposed) so that people can be paid efficiently. “Milestone Reviewer” is documented in your roles on the Roles Sheet. "

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 87.5% 7 D KI GG K BS L MR
Abstain 12.5% 1 DA
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 11 Q E R C EAD OJ V G JB D AA

8 of 19 people have voted (42%)

D

Dani
Agree
Tue 18 Dec 2018 3:01PM

I think those are 4 bullet points above, the last sentence about Roles is separate from the time commitment. this is a great process addition - as part of the Role documentation, a responsibility could be added to notify the Whitelist administrator when unavailable to review for any reason.

DA

Don Adams
Abstain
Tue 18 Dec 2018 6:53PM

Maybe a stupid question: does "understand[ing]... which errors are 'blocking'" mean that someone would need to have a semi-solid technical background in order to be a milestone reviewer?

KI

Kris is
Agree
Thu 20 Dec 2018 5:33PM

what we should have urgently is - once this in place again a randomization of reviewers. all should be active so we should no longer be able to select people - this keeps it objective. You do not need to understand the content, that's the role of the campaign mgr.

L

Poll Created Mon 17 Dec 2018 3:24PM

Whitelist Welcome Message Closed Sun 23 Dec 2018 8:02AM

They are sent this message after being added:

"Congratulations and thank you!! You can now be a Reviewer. This is your commitment: to check the “My Milestones” page of the DApp AT LEAST once a week, and follow through on your actions in the milestone workflow. If a milestone is lacking in clarity, proof, or any element - YOU communicate this to the maker, and see though that they fix it (or re-propose if you must reject it). You may exit the reviewer role at any time, by contacting the DApp team* and letting them know you’d like to step back. We encourage you to take this initiative any time you won’t have time for milestone reviewing, because it really gums up the works and leaves people hanging when they need to get paid and their reviewer is silent. If you are slow with responding to milestones you are slated to review for more than a month, or if you aren’t selected as a reviewer for more than 3 months, you may be removed from the reviewers whitelist."

*This will hopefully become a role held by one person, the reviewer's whitelist manager role. It's up for grabs in the roles sheet and will be likely be solidified this week at the roles meeting.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 7 D KI GG K BS L MR
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 12 Q E R C EAD OJ V G JB D AA DA

7 of 19 people have voted (36%)

D

Dani
Agree
Tue 18 Dec 2018 3:02PM

Pretty straightforward, yes!

KI

Kris is
Agree
Thu 20 Dec 2018 5:35PM

GREAT!

L

Loie Wed 19 Dec 2018 1:54PM

@donadams nope! "understanding which errors are blocking" just means reading the milestone tutorial :) and taking to heart what issues are serious enough that they are grounds for rejecting the milestone (aka blocking), for example, wrong calculation of ETH amount.