There’s some ideas floating around for ways to improve our Discourse. Let’s start tossing them in this thread. From there we can pick out ones that are interesting to each of us, split up, and return with what we should change!
I’d like to have some discussion around:
Templates and how they could be used in Discourse
Looking further into Discourse wikis and how they could be used
Improving the reputation thresholds.
What about you? What ideas should we be chatting about?
Let me preface this with one of the major motivators for this conversation: the uptick of inbound proposals (which are likely to only increase, over time).
A template with some standard fields would be a massive win as it will enable more meaningful extraction of information from proposals, which, in turn, will greatly aid in the nouns-ai efforts.
As far as I’m concerned, the things which are of great consideration to nouners are the following:
What are you doing?
How will this proliferate the nouns meme?
What do you think makes this “Nounish”?
What is your track record for projects like this?
High level funding breakdown (including milestones).
Associated media (pictures, video, etc…)
I’m going to circle up with Hero, but I believe the above should be able to each be answered with 50 words or less (~2.5 sentences) with the free response open to however long (keeping in mind that the more text, the less likely people are to read it).
I should also mention that media is likely pretty crucial for a proposal to make it - shows additional effort and thoughtfulness (if done right).
I love the idea of templates to make for better structured information. And what @honkdiddly has mentioned above would also be a great way to extract some key info that could act as a TLDR.
Reputation threshold increase is likely to also filter out unknowns that could have a great idea and proposal, but no reputation yet… however, I think this filter is probably more beneficial than a hinderance.
Adding onto this, one way of using positive feedback to encourage adherence to the structure is train Roko the AI Noun to give feedback on proposals specifically calling out sections that either should be there and aren’t or shouting out sections that seem well thought out / flushed out already!
Mainly want to bump this but lets also look at risks that come with templating responses.
What are the drawbacks and risks, if any?
Frankly, most templates with standard fields like this feel like busy work and can be a turnoff for the proposer. I think the key is in the exact wording of the questions, and if they give anything back to the proposer. The YC application is great since it helps educate the applicant on their own idea and potential shortcomings. For many applicants, the YC form is the first time they really think critically about their idea/startup, and their idea is hardened and improved as a result.
If we can have a similar effect on Nounsdao proposers/proposals I think that would be an incredible win and do us well in the long term.
(Fwiw, i think honks questions are already solid.)
Other thoughts on discourse:
Im in favor of adding roles for nouners (and delegates) to better highlight whose opinions are backed up by voting power. My hunch is that this will help proposal writers to more carefully evaluate feedback given here, and take further measures to ensure they have reasonable support for a prop/iterate until they do.
I think nouns proposals can be likened to a sales funnel. We want the top of the funnel to be permissionless and able to pick up anything, good or bad. Proposals undergo a sifting process as they continue down the funnel, and the dao eventually spits out the best ones (in theory). Discourse pretty clearly acts as the top of the funnel here, and we should be cognizant that it’s messy and hard to keep up by design. With that in mind, we should strive to improve the funnel without accidentally tighten it up in the wrong places.