Indeed. I believe that the removal of the ‘abstract’ section wasn’t a good idea because that’s where pertinent info could be conveyed. However, I believe that authors should be free to add whatever [optional] fields and headings they want; as long as the mandatory fields are in place. This way, we don’t find ourselves editing the draft once again because it’s likely to be deprecated again at some point in the future.
Those are two different things though.
-
The disbursement of funds should be revised for expediency. The bottom line is that once the DAO has voted for funds to be disbursed, there should be no road blocks because anything related to transparency, accountability etc. should have been addressed during admin review. We can’t continue putting the cart before the horse while expecting to streamline ops to any reasonable extent.
-
As to providing more visibility to authors, I agree. However, I’m not sure how we would even do that. Especially given the low engagement that ALL the community outlets (social, Discord, Discourse) etc. continue to experience. You can only do so much within a bubble that’s not growing - while not engaging.
.
As I mentioned in a recent UGH Spaces with @G_is_us and others, what we’re missing are activities that engage and incite the community. Given our relationship and proximity to them, I used Moca as an example of a engagement community. I have been working on some ideas on how to do something for the community here, but I don’t have much faith in our community engagement, let alone the voting process. And so, I don’t see how anything that I come up with could possibly amount to anything but wasted time and effort. I have to admit, it’s disheartening, and it’s the same or similar despair and frustration that’s holding our community back. You being one of the most uplifting and positive people in the community, must know this already.
.
Also, I am vehemently opposed to proposal campaign activities because it is counter-productive and burdensome in so many ways. I just wrote a lengthy missive about specifically this.
.
If builders come here and write up a proposal that makes it to vote, the onus is on the community to review what they’re voting on. That’s on the community not the builders. This burden, the voting gauntlet and uncertainty aside, is precisely why we’re not growing. And it’s another reason why we must [collectively] endeavor to review our voting system.
.
As I type this, we have had several proposals funded for activities like this - and nothing has come from them.
It’s an issue with the translation tool built into the software. There are far more advanced AI tools that do exceptionally good translations now. We should probably look into those. But then, seeing as they are external processes, we would need someone to manually run them through the AIPs. And therein lies another problem: How do we know if something needs corrections or tweaks if we don’t have people in the community who are familiar with both English and the target language?
Another idea that I have been toying with since that UGH Spaces would be to do audio translations of the final proposals. It is common knowledge that audio translations are far better than written ones. And so, in each final proposal, we could then have a link to supported language audio (even English) for people to listen to. I am working on a proposal for this, but have yet to put it up because I am also working on three proposals which I haven’t yet had time to finalize due to my schedule.