The team wants to design and implement an Equity Resource Hub for dReps to educate and raise awareness regarding unintentional bias when serving a diverse community. By providing tools, workshops and resources for learning, this type of behaviour will possibly be mitigated as much as possible. However, the way it was designed, the dReps will get to learn hands-on that their decisions are biased or “wrong” by gaining or losing delegators and thus being rendered powerful or powerless in the voting decision. However, I see how the wheels could be set in motion by creating a place that encourages thinking outside the box, therefore, even though I don’t highly agree with the impact this proposal could have on the ecosystem, I agree that it is well fitted in the challenge and if voted, it could create a positive action throughout the community. As such, I will rate this section a 4.

The idea of the proposal is good, to create a hub aimed at educating and raising awareness among members of the Cardano community about prejudice, notions of equality, and thereby preventing some members of specific communities from being marginalized. In theory this would increase the quality of the dReps' work, and would meet the challenge's objectives. But I think there is a lack of detail regarding what would be done in practice, it is said that the dReps would be subjected to a survey that would make it clear that everyone suffers from prejudice and from that work would be done with workshops, virtual training, etc. But we don't know exactly what content is present in the resources, for example in "we can beg members for the exercises necessary to take control of unconscious programming and create deeper empathy". What would these exercises look like? I think the idea is in line with the challenge, but it could be explained more deeply.

This proposal identifies the problem very clear and this is a very important project that could support and add value to the Cardano ecosystem. DReps and Catalyst voters definitely need the tools, safety, and support to learn. They need to have resources and also training to be able to function well. They also need an environment to talk about some theme and have some place for discussion. Keymetrics and goals of the proposal align with the challenge and it will be good for the future of Cardano ecosystem.

The objective of achieving diversity of Dreps remain far from been achieved as far as I know. However, per my review of this project, I consider this project, a more inclusive and well structured approach towards addressing the challenge of diversity of Dreps. “The goal of the Equity Resource Hub will be to educate members of Catalyst on the topics of bias and equity; and to provide additional tools, activities, and resources to grow one’s knowledge of cognitive fallacies.” In respect of that, the team intends to engage and empower members on inclusiveness, so as to reduce biases by using workshops and virtual learning with the assistance of tools, activities, and resources to grow one’s awareness of cognitive biases. What’s the value addition to the Cardano ecosystem? Obviously, this initiative is aligned with the objective of the dRep improvement challenge setting of ensuring drep diversity. Again, this creates an avenue for knowledge acquisition to any individual new to the catalyst community and to the drep role. However, since the emphasis here is on preventing biases, what’s the team’s strategy to make the platform more language friendly, considering the biases to the English language? I suggest the team addresses this to enhance the overall framework of the project. Again, is there a marketing strategy? Well, it is a great attempt by the team to recognize or anticipate possible lack of interest as a risk and therefore outlines a clear marketing strategy to address it. However, aside the acquisition of certificates after each training, I prefer the team consider monetary learning incentive to attract more people to the project.

The create a dRep's equity Resource Hub proposal is building Equity Resource Hub to empower dReps & Catalyst members with knowledge about bias & equity and to provide them with tools & resources on cognitive fallacies. This proposal will encourage participants to take the Harvard Implicit Association Test to provide their awareness of their personal level of bias. They will later share and reflect on this unique experience to practice and reinforce the lessons learned. These training resources will be available (at will) for the whole community and encouraged for elected dReps. Upon completion, members will have a verfied CNFT ad DID verified credential. The proposal fits the dRep improvement and Onboarding challenge quite well as it helps to encourage deligation participation rate and the tool might aid dRep to vote without biasness. The team does not explain why the Harvard Implicit Association Test is selected for participants in their program and it is unclear how this test will help to promote the equity and empathy. There is no link provided for the test but this Harvard Implicit Association Test is the way to realize unconscious bias. There is no proof of the test benefit and among many resources in the community, it might be a challenge for ones to take the test and to go through the exercise. However, the team explains the possible ways to sort out the issues in case of low participation.

The team is meticulous in their project’s progress tracking. They plan to measure their completed tasks daily and will communicate with the community through the After Town Halls twice a month and also on their discord server that is open to anyone in the community. This level of transparency is highly appreciated and makes their proposal highly auditable. Their success vision is described in detail and some have clear numbers: 20% of active users have engaged with the Hub is one of those examples. I would have liked to see other metrics having such a level of granularity included, but considering the details provided otherwise throughout the proposal, I don’t see these affecting the audibility of the proposal in any way. In conclusion, I will rate this section a 5.

The proposal is auditable, in terms of progress we have good assurance that the Cardano community will have constant updates on what is being done: it is said that online meetings will be held after the town halls at least once a month. We also have partial success metrics, that is, we know what would be debated in those moments. Speaking of ultimate success, we know what is expected: “clarifying prejudice to influence harm reduction for those traditionally marginalized by prejudice”. But how can we be sure that the community has absorbed the project well and is making a correct and effective use of this knowledge? In my view, one more observation was in order, a further research with quantitative and qualitative data to prove the practical effects of this initiative. In general we have clear ways of monitoring the project, although some improvements are interesting.

This proposal has a very clear roadmap, well-thought metrics/KPIs, and also have a clear understandable description of the targeted problem that can be measured against the proposed outcomes. Community could also check the process of this project through snapbrillia social media, channel and community.

As part of confirming their transparency and the accountability to the Cardano community , the proponent has I indicated the team’s readiness to make all report and feedback available to the community via town hall meetings and SWARM. Per the script, the proposer has made available all relevant information for auditing. The detailed description of what the proposer intend to achieve with this project alongside its roadmap, shows a clear alignment with the overall objective and the KPIs provided. On how to measure the performance of the project, the proposer suggest indicators such as “the number of active users who have engaged with the Equity Resource Hub, whether instances of conversation around equity are on the rise and whether people are open to sharing their experiences”. With these parameters, we see a mixture of both quality and quantitative metrics which provides a clear mechanism for monitoring and assessing the progress of the project. More especially, the proponents has assigned a 20% milestone to the quantitative KPI, just to simplify the assessment of the performance of the project. My only issue is, how would the proposer get the data on the metrics for measuring the progress and success of the project?

The success of this proposal is to shed light on the bias so that there will be less harm to traditionally marginalized community members. They will know that they are successful in their mission with % of catalyst voting population is more informed in combating bias. The metrics the team provided are 20% of active users engaged in the equity resource hub, and more people to share their experience and conversation. As the proposal objective should be focusing on dRep improvement and onboarding but the metrics for this project is from the pool of active users (both dReps and non-dReps). The proposer team might need to inform back to the community after launching the dRep equity resource hub, how many participants are joining the hub and how many are active users of the platform for their bias training. Those might be more relevant metrics than the pool of active users as claimed by this proposal.