Ramblings: A model for a sustainable meritocracy
I wrote this a couple years ago, and I ended up in a #cls10 session related to it, so I thought I’d post it unedited. Feel free to destroy it.
Idea:
A self-regulating community meritocracy model for collaboration and cooperation.
This can be applied to any type of collaborative organization where individuals efforts
are rewarded when the organization benefits. Examples:
Content Wikis : Wikipedia, etc
Projects : Software development, etc.
Organizations that work together for common benefit: ISO, ECMA, etc.
This model is designed to significantly reduce the ability for a Pariticipant to game the
system for self-benefit. (Examples of which: Attempts at ISO Vote stacking by MS)
Participants:
Individuals – People who particpate in the community
Organizations – Collections of associated individuals who are both responsible to the
organization and responsible for the organization’s behavior.
Organizations have the authority to grant some or all of their Achievement
benefits to a member Participant. (completey subject to the Organization’s
philosophy)
Concepts:
Action – An activity that a Participant is involved with:
Contribution – a type of action that is adding to the value of the community,
[Recognition|Transgression] – the recognition of an activity a pariticipant, filed by someone in the community
Bill – a request for a policy change or ammendment to the fabric of the community
–these are never negative, but the introduction of bills as a nusance can be considered anti-social
Merit – a quantifiable contribution to the community
Karma – a instantaneous measurement of a Participant’s [value?] in the community
– [short-term] karma – the value that represents a participant’s [value] within the [time window]
– [long-term] karma – the sum/eternal acheivement karma that is prior to the [time window]
[Potential] – given the evaluation of past performance, the expected future value.
– value is weighted in [time window] increments:
current [time window] – 40%
current -1 [time window] – 30%
current -2 [time window] – 20%
remaining [time window] – 10%
[Time Window] – the length of time that is considered to be “right now” {~90 days?}
[Achievement Level] – the state that a Participant holds inside the community.
there are four levels, each has a weight associated with it [name:weight]
– [Fellow:10] the highest level of achievement
considered fully trusted and can act on behalf of the community
unrestricted Contributions access.
only Individuals can be Fellows
By virtue of creating the community, founders tend to be fellows
– [Trusted:6] Considered extremely trustworthy
Contributions are assumed to be accepted, but is still placed in the [review queue]
– [Associate:2] Proven record of positive actions to the community.
Contributions are publicly viewable, are required to be reviewed prior to acceptance
– [Volenteer:1] Any member of the community without a proven track record.
– [Owner:100] NOT PART OF PUBLIC COMMUNITIES
– Some Organizations may still require individuals that are granted ‘super’ status (ie, benevolent dictator)
– Public communities should never have Owners.
[Review Queue] – Contributions that should be given a [Rating]
[Rating] – Quantifiable examination of an Action
– Intent:
Positive – The community is not harmed by the contribution {hmm}
Negative – The community is harmed by the contribution {considered anti-social}
– Acceptance
Excellent – This is a valuable addition to the community,
of a quality that requires no revision before acceptance
Good – This is a valuable addition to the community,
with feedback the contributor should evaluate prior to acceptance
but can be accepted without additional change
[Almost] – This is on the right track to being accepted,
with feedback to the contributor that must be rectified before acceptance is possible
(this may be a conversation, or a modification to the contribution)
[Insufficient] – this contribution does not meet community standards for acceptance
The contribution rejected, and must be resubmitted.
– Significance – the amount of Merit that the contribution has.
[Extreme:10] – this is a crowning acheivement that has the highest level of benefit to the community
[High:6] – this is very valuable to the community
[Fair:2] – this is valuable to the community
[Mild:1] – the value is low, but not zero
[NoEffect:0] – the contribution does not actively add value to the community
– Comments – constructive feedback on the contribution (no ‘A+++ crap,’ no ‘stupid xxx’)
[Sponsor] – a Participant will have multiple Participants who are have acted to approve an acheivement promotion
Sponsors are then required to act in the event of Negative Actions. Actions can be:
– Censure – a revocation of sponsorship
– Penalty/Counselling – Application of penalty to the participant’s karma, and creating a
conversation to correct behavior.
– Forgiveness – the sponsors can forgive the transgression, usually accompanied by
a positive action on part of the participant.
– Defense – Sponsors can come to the defence of a Participant, which can potentially reverse
the ‘negative’ intent of the action; (may require approval by quorum)
Because a participant has several sponsors;
– if a Sponsor fails to act, the lack of action can become a ‘negative action’ of their own
