CAs in Catalyst Circle - Problem Ranking
Wednesday, July 28, 2021
The results of a ranked-choice voting election. | Download Raw Summary Data
Legend
| Round | Eliminated | Winners |
|---|---|---|
| Round 1 | ||
| Round 2 | CAs are limited in their participantion as proposers because of a perceived or real bias Proposals (especially the technical ones) can be difficult to evaluate by CAs without an adequate background The current vCA consensus model is too strict, preventing sometimes to reach a decision Proposers are unhappy because their comments are not used by the vCAs during assess-QA stage. Currently there is no opportunity to test different assessment processes. |
|
| Round 3 | The only official task of CAs is to assess proposals, although they are informally required to do more than that (improve the system, assist proposers, etc.) There are no requirements to be a CA, and very low requirements to be a vCA. There is no clear way or tool for the community to vote and make decisions about the Catalyst process. The CA-vCA processes are designed by people who know the system, but lack technical background to make improvements based on science and research (professionals). |
|
| Round 4 | Corruption of CAs Wording or instructions related to challenge alignment assessment are not clear about how CAs should take this into consideration when providing a score. The number of assessments (made by CAs) and especially reviews (made by vCAs) is low, in general. |
CAs and vCAs rewarding system does not incentivize higher assessments quality (CAs) or higher number of assessment reviews (vCAs). |
| Round 5 | IdeaScale allows any proposer to add anyone as a co-proposer, which blocks that from person being a CA-vCA in that Fund. Current assessment process leave loopholes for subjectivity, therefore bias, which is not ideal when there are few CAs-vCAs involved. |
There is no reputation-merit system for CAs-vCA, and CAs-vCAs ratings are all weighted in the same way. |
Round 1
| Candidate | What changed | Current total votes |
|---|---|---|
| CAs and vCAs rewarding system does not incentivize higher assessments quality (CAs) or higher number of assessment reviews (vCAs). | 8 votes in the first round | 26.67% 8 votes |
| There is no reputation-merit system for CAs-vCA, and CAs-vCAs ratings are all weighted in the same way. | 3 votes in the first round | 10.0% 3 votes |
| Most proposers don’t receive support from CAs or other community members during submit-refine-finalize phases. They only receive a score after they cannot edit the proposal any longer. | 5 votes in the first round | 16.67% 5 votes |
| IdeaScale allows any proposer to add anyone as a co-proposer, which blocks that from person being a CA-vCA in that Fund. | 2 votes in the first round | 6.67% 2 votes |
| Current assessment process leave loopholes for subjectivity, therefore bias, which is not ideal when there are few CAs-vCAs involved. | 2 votes in the first round | 6.67% 2 votes |
| Corruption of CAs | 2 votes in the first round | 6.67% 2 votes |
| Wording or instructions related to challenge alignment assessment are not clear about how CAs should take this into consideration when providing a score. | 2 votes in the first round | 6.67% 2 votes |
| The number of assessments (made by CAs) and especially reviews (made by vCAs) is low, in general. | 2 votes in the first round | 6.67% 2 votes |
| The only official task of CAs is to assess proposals, although they are informally required to do more than that (improve the system, assist proposers, etc.) | 1 votes in the first round | 3.33% 1 votes |
| There are no requirements to be a CA, and very low requirements to be a vCA. | 1 votes in the first round | 3.33% 1 votes |
| There is no clear way or tool for the community to vote and make decisions about the Catalyst process. | 1 votes in the first round | 3.33% 1 votes |
| The CA-vCA processes are designed by people who know the system, but lack technical background to make improvements based on science and research (professionals). | 1 votes in the first round | 3.33% 1 votes |
| CAs are limited in their participantion as proposers because of a perceived or real bias | 0 votes in the first round | 0.0% 0 votes |
| Proposals (especially the technical ones) can be difficult to evaluate by CAs without an adequate background | 0 votes in the first round | 0.0% 0 votes |
| The current vCA consensus model is too strict, preventing sometimes to reach a decision | 0 votes in the first round | 0.0% 0 votes |
| Proposers are unhappy because their comments are not used by the vCAs during assess-QA stage. | 0 votes in the first round | 0.0% 0 votes |
| Currently there is no opportunity to test different assessment processes. | 0 votes in the first round | 0.0% 0 votes |
Round 2
| Candidate | What changed | Current total votes |
|---|---|---|
| CAs and vCAs rewarding system does not incentivize higher assessments quality (CAs) or higher number of assessment reviews (vCAs). | 26.67% 8 votes |
|
| There is no reputation-merit system for CAs-vCA, and CAs-vCAs ratings are all weighted in the same way. | 10.0% 3 votes |
|
| Most proposers don’t receive support from CAs or other community members during submit-refine-finalize phases. They only receive a score after they cannot edit the proposal any longer. | 16.67% 5 votes |
|
| IdeaScale allows any proposer to add anyone as a co-proposer, which blocks that from person being a CA-vCA in that Fund. | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| Current assessment process leave loopholes for subjectivity, therefore bias, which is not ideal when there are few CAs-vCAs involved. | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| Corruption of CAs | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| Wording or instructions related to challenge alignment assessment are not clear about how CAs should take this into consideration when providing a score. | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| The number of assessments (made by CAs) and especially reviews (made by vCAs) is low, in general. | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| The only official task of CAs is to assess proposals, although they are informally required to do more than that (improve the system, assist proposers, etc.) | 3.33% 1 votes |
|
| There are no requirements to be a CA, and very low requirements to be a vCA. | 3.33% 1 votes |
|
| There is no clear way or tool for the community to vote and make decisions about the Catalyst process. | 3.33% 1 votes |
|
| The CA-vCA processes are designed by people who know the system, but lack technical background to make improvements based on science and research (professionals). | 3.33% 1 votes |
|
| CAs are limited in their participantion as proposers because of a perceived or real bias | Eliminated: | |
| Proposals (especially the technical ones) can be difficult to evaluate by CAs without an adequate background | Eliminated: | |
| The current vCA consensus model is too strict, preventing sometimes to reach a decision | Eliminated: | |
| Proposers are unhappy because their comments are not used by the vCAs during assess-QA stage. | Eliminated: | |
| Currently there is no opportunity to test different assessment processes. | Eliminated: |
Round 3
| Candidate | What changed | Current total votes |
|---|---|---|
| CAs and vCAs rewarding system does not incentivize higher assessments quality (CAs) or higher number of assessment reviews (vCAs). | Gained 1 votes | 30.0% 9 votes |
| There is no reputation-merit system for CAs-vCA, and CAs-vCAs ratings are all weighted in the same way. | 10.0% 3 votes |
|
| Most proposers don’t receive support from CAs or other community members during submit-refine-finalize phases. They only receive a score after they cannot edit the proposal any longer. | Gained 1 votes | 20.0% 6 votes |
| IdeaScale allows any proposer to add anyone as a co-proposer, which blocks that from person being a CA-vCA in that Fund. | Gained 1 votes | 10.0% 3 votes |
| Current assessment process leave loopholes for subjectivity, therefore bias, which is not ideal when there are few CAs-vCAs involved. | Gained 1 votes | 10.0% 3 votes |
| Corruption of CAs | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| Wording or instructions related to challenge alignment assessment are not clear about how CAs should take this into consideration when providing a score. | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| The number of assessments (made by CAs) and especially reviews (made by vCAs) is low, in general. | 6.67% 2 votes |
|
| The only official task of CAs is to assess proposals, although they are informally required to do more than that (improve the system, assist proposers, etc.) | Eliminated: 1 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive | |
| There are no requirements to be a CA, and very low requirements to be a vCA. | Eliminated: 1 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive | |
| There is no clear way or tool for the community to vote and make decisions about the Catalyst process. | Eliminated: 1 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive | |
| The CA-vCA processes are designed by people who know the system, but lack technical background to make improvements based on science and research (professionals). | Eliminated: 1 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive |
Round 4
| Candidate | What changed | Current total votes |
|---|---|---|
| CAs and vCAs rewarding system does not incentivize higher assessments quality (CAs) or higher number of assessment reviews (vCAs). | Elected: Gained 4 votes | 43.33% 13 votes |
| There is no reputation-merit system for CAs-vCA, and CAs-vCAs ratings are all weighted in the same way. | Gained 2 votes | 16.67% 5 votes |
| Most proposers don’t receive support from CAs or other community members during submit-refine-finalize phases. They only receive a score after they cannot edit the proposal any longer. | 20.0% 6 votes |
|
| IdeaScale allows any proposer to add anyone as a co-proposer, which blocks that from person being a CA-vCA in that Fund. | 10.0% 3 votes |
|
| Current assessment process leave loopholes for subjectivity, therefore bias, which is not ideal when there are few CAs-vCAs involved. | 10.0% 3 votes |
|
| Corruption of CAs | Eliminated: 2 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive | |
| Wording or instructions related to challenge alignment assessment are not clear about how CAs should take this into consideration when providing a score. | Eliminated: 2 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive | |
| The number of assessments (made by CAs) and especially reviews (made by vCAs) is low, in general. | Eliminated: 2 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive |
Round 5
| Candidate | What changed | Current total votes |
|---|---|---|
| CAs and vCAs rewarding system does not incentivize higher assessments quality (CAs) or higher number of assessment reviews (vCAs). | No change (Elected in Round 4) | 36.67% 11 votes |
| There is no reputation-merit system for CAs-vCA, and CAs-vCAs ratings are all weighted in the same way. | Elected: Gained 6 votes | 36.67% 11 votes |
| Most proposers don’t receive support from CAs or other community members during submit-refine-finalize phases. They only receive a score after they cannot edit the proposal any longer. | Gained 2 votes | 26.67% 8 votes |
| IdeaScale allows any proposer to add anyone as a co-proposer, which blocks that from person being a CA-vCA in that Fund. | Eliminated: 3 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive | |
| Current assessment process leave loopholes for subjectivity, therefore bias, which is not ideal when there are few CAs-vCAs involved. | Eliminated: 3 votes redistributed to remaining candidates or became inactive |
| Round | What changed | Current total votes |
|---|---|---|
| Round 1 | 8.0 first-round votes. | 26.67% 8 votes |
| Round 2 | 26.67% 8 votes |
|
| Round 3 | 30.0% 9 votes |
|
| Round 4 | Elected. | 43.33% 13 votes |
| Round 5 | 36.67% 11 votes |
| Round | What changed | Current total votes |
|---|---|---|
| Round 1 | 3.0 first-round votes. | 10.0% 3 votes |
| Round 2 | 10.0% 3 votes |
|
| Round 3 | 10.0% 3 votes |
|
| Round 4 | 16.67% 5 votes |
|
| Round 5 | Elected. | 36.67% 11 votes |
| Candidate name | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 | Round 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAs and vCAs rewarding system does not incentivize higher assessments quality (CAs) or higher number of assessment reviews (vCAs). |
26.67%8 votes |
26.67%8 votes |
30.0%9 votes |
43.33%13 votes |
36.67%11 votes |
| There is no reputation-merit system for CAs-vCA, and CAs-vCAs ratings are all weighted in the same way. |
10.0%3 votes |
10.0%3 votes |
10.0%3 votes |
16.67%5 votes |
36.67%11 votes |
| Most proposers don’t receive support from CAs or other community members during submit-refine-finalize phases. They only receive a score after they cannot edit the proposal any longer. |
16.67%5 votes |
16.67%5 votes |
20.0%6 votes |
20.0%6 votes |
26.67%8 votes |
| IdeaScale allows any proposer to add anyone as a co-proposer, which blocks that from person being a CA-vCA in that Fund. |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
10.0%3 votes |
10.0%3 votes |
|
| Current assessment process leave loopholes for subjectivity, therefore bias, which is not ideal when there are few CAs-vCAs involved. |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
10.0%3 votes |
10.0%3 votes |
|
| Corruption of CAs |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
||
| Wording or instructions related to challenge alignment assessment are not clear about how CAs should take this into consideration when providing a score. |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
||
| The number of assessments (made by CAs) and especially reviews (made by vCAs) is low, in general. |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
6.67%2 votes |
||
| The only official task of CAs is to assess proposals, although they are informally required to do more than that (improve the system, assist proposers, etc.) |
3.33%1 votes |
3.33%1 votes |
|||
| There are no requirements to be a CA, and very low requirements to be a vCA. |
3.33%1 votes |
3.33%1 votes |
|||
| There is no clear way or tool for the community to vote and make decisions about the Catalyst process. |
3.33%1 votes |
3.33%1 votes |
|||
| The CA-vCA processes are designed by people who know the system, but lack technical background to make improvements based on science and research (professionals). |
3.33%1 votes |
3.33%1 votes |
|||
| CAs are limited in their participantion as proposers because of a perceived or real bias |
0.0%0 votes |
||||
| Proposals (especially the technical ones) can be difficult to evaluate by CAs without an adequate background |
0.0%0 votes |
||||
| The current vCA consensus model is too strict, preventing sometimes to reach a decision |
0.0%0 votes |
||||
| Proposers are unhappy because their comments are not used by the vCAs during assess-QA stage. |
0.0%0 votes |
||||
| Currently there is no opportunity to test different assessment processes. |
0.0%0 votes |
Presents the Single Table Summary in a format readable by Wikipedia
Uses an iframe to embed the interactive Bar Chart
On sites that support embed.ly (including Medium, Wordpress, Canva, and more), you can just paste this URL
Copyright © 2024, Robot Armin LLC