Quality-Assurance-DAO
A lack of advocacy for open source
Team
Experience
Stephen has 30 years experience in organizing academic, community and business projects.
Solution
Innovative approach to open source Reform PM to distributed peer facilitation. Adapt maturity standards to distributed organizations.
Community Advisor Reviews
Addresses Challenge
Does the proposal effectively addresses the challenge?
Community Reviews (4)
The proposal appears to effectively address the challenge and has certainly engaged the community in conversation. Reading through most of the proposal and comments made me think that perhaps further discussion is required at this stage to assess the overall merit of this proposal to the PC community.
The proposal to start a open-source quality assurance DAO is ideal for standardizing the amount of opensource project the Catalyst and later Voltier might fund. There is a need for standardization else there will be difficulty achieving the required standard later after the project reaches mammoth state.
Unfortunately I struggle to understand what exactly the proposal helps to accomplish. In my opinion the language and approach of the proposal makes it unlikely to gain acceptance in the community and have its intended impact.
Having qualified open-source experts available to support catalyst proposer is a very good fit for the challenge.
Feasibility
Given experience and plan presented is likely that this proposal will be implemented successfully
Community Reviews (4)
Its likely the proposer will produce something. He is basically asking for nothing ($5), and appears to be working on it anyway.
The proposer is clearly making strides in the organization and outreach, but the success of the project will depend on community acceptance.
The author has invested a great amount of time and effort into the proposal and appears to have the necessary skillset to drive the proposal. Successful implementation is difficult to gauge as there appears to be mixed sentiment on issues of centralisation which have not been fully teased out in this plan. The budget is minimal but this does not seem to be a mitigating factor in terms of worth to the community.
The task is more or less complete, and the proposal has been to solicitate the community's approval.
Auditability
Does the proposal provides sufficient information to assess and audit progress and completion?
Community Reviews (5)
The proposal itself is not particularly clear so its hard to say if it will address the challenge. It would be nice to have a succinct summary of what it plans to do and how this addresses the challenge.
since minimal funds for minting a single NFT are all that is requested, this aspect of an audit will be easy. The proposer does give timelines for specific phases of the project, so this does give something to assess in the coming months.
Definition of success and expected output is provided. the request fund is 5 USD. This enough information to track progress.
The proposal provides copious amounts of information with links that do help to inform the reader. However, assessing the success of the project is difficult as much of the discussion is obtuse. I felt like I was reading a contract that may or may not contain small print that I hadn't been able to find. This made me consider the voters being asked to decide whether this was a proposal they felt should be funded. I was left feeling many of the PC community will struggle to understand what the proposal is trying to achieve.
The progress auditable, and the success is a complex metric. Since there is almost nill financial cost to Treasury, this metric is not applicable for this proposal.
Impact
The proposal is able to scale to address future challenges.