Discussion thread for AGP-A: Community Review Period
This seems very similar to the Aragon Voting Gauntlet that I proposed earlier. Reading through the GitHub PR, I don’t see any specifics as to how long the review window should be. Did you have ideas on this and/or would you be open to merging the two proposals into one?
Yes @burrrata the intention is for this to close Issue #54 in the repo as it addresses the main concern. If you read the changes made in the associated PR you’ll see I’ve specified a community review period of one week, starting three weeks before the AN vote.
This is positive so we would all be able to have sufficient time to analyze the different proposals before racing into casting a vote…
This would be a very welcome change in my opinion. So far most proposals have been submitted near the deadline and locked immediately. If people create proposals and start discussions earlier I think that will result in better proposals and a more informed community.
Hopefully it will not result in people just posting stubs for the initial deadline, and then making major changes just prior to the final deadline–but that would be no worse than the current situation so it seems like a worthwhile change.
I think this sounds like a great idea!
A little confused by this. AGP-1 Stage 2 says that first one should create an Issue and forum post for discussion, then submit a PR afterwards. You submitted your PR at the same time as you posted to the forum. You’re also saying that you’re closing my open Issue, but there has been no discussion on that Issue. Also you didn’t list me as a co-author for the AGP, which would make sense if you’re building off of my open Issue and submitting a PR to close it. What’s up with all that?
I’ll try to answer these one at a time:
Stage 2 says that first one should create an Issue and forum post for discussion, then submit a PR afterwards. You submitted your PR at the same time as you posted to the forum.
I have already seen / received directly many comments that support a proposal like this so I did not feel the need to start a general conversation about the proposal in an issue or forum thread before submitting the PR and moving the proposal to Stage III. Plus, it was easiest for me to submit the proposal as a PR so people can compare the changes with the full APG-1 text as context.
You’re also saying that you’re closing my open Issue, but there has been no discussion on that Issue.
Discussion is not required to close an issue, but if you believe the PR does not adequately address your issue then we can discuss that here or you can leave a review on the PR with suggestions that would help me close the issue. (I can also get rid of the reference to your issue if it’s easier to keep them separate/ unrelated.)
Also you didn’t list me as a co-author for the AGP, which would make sense if you’re building off of my open Issue and submitting a PR to close it.
If you had actually helped write the text in the AGP, then it would make sense to add you as a co-author (and I would be remiss to exclude you in that case). But since you did not actually write any of the text, you are not actually a co-author. (Also, as mentioned earlier in this comment this AGP is based off of several comments I have seen/ received directly, including your issue #54, suggesting that a mandatory review period would be a welcome change.)
For the record, this isn’t how co-authorship of academic papers work. But indeed I think this AGP is generic enough that I don’t see the qualms here.
What is the process for AGP collaboration though? Like I created the thread for changing the fiscal year, and I don’t think anyone else proposed that change in the manner that I proposed it (and yours was very close). But I wasn’t reached out to “co-author” an AGP (even though my thread was linked in the discussion post). Curious how this should work in general.
A ‘Contributor’ acknowledgment is quite common in research papers, for those not quite Co-Authors. To receive credit, there’s also an expectation of taking responsibility for the work itself, in my experience.
Splitting this off into another thread:
After going through the review process for our AGP, I do not think the way the review has been scheduled in this AGP will be very helpful for authors, especially for Flock or high value proposals.
I think we should actually choose a cut off date for feedback, which is one week before the AGP is due to the Association. And there should at least be two weeks of review time.
So I would revise it to be:
After an AGP has been submitted as a draft to the AGPs repo, it must undergo a Community Review period that starts five weeks before the next Aragon Network vote begins and lasts for two weeks. This then gives the AGP author one week to make revisions before the AGP submission deadline.
I don’t know if we want to adopt different standards for Flock AGPs though. I’m just trying to see how we can find a balance, where network participants know that their feedback must be submitted by a certain date for it to be taken into consideration for some kind of immediate revision.
But I don’t expect a revision to your AGP here as this feedback is in complete contradiction to my recommendation! Just trying to make sure the expectations are clear for what is at stake for authors when the feedback comes on Day 5 or 6 of the 7 day review period. That’s not enough time to double check someone’s feedback. Otherwise we may be making knee-jerk edits to satisfy a single person’s needs.
I agree. I don’t think it makes seance to ask proposal writers to digest feedback and amend their proposals on the fly, Especially when there could be millions at stake. Even more so when feedback comes from influential stakeholders within the ecosystem. It totally makes sense to have a revision period where feedback can be analysed and thoughtfully taken into consideration
Even though we may end up integrating further the Flock process with the AGP process, we could still implement longer community review periods for Flock applications. I expect that if we cannot change this given AGP, the AA could still do it as a specific policy for Flock.
Thanks for the feedback y’all. The AGP is being submitted as-is. But I can see that a designated feedback time is perhaps at least as important as a designated editing time. This could go back and forth quite a bit, so we have to balance getting proper feedback and editing time in with the need to actually execute on our deliverables, and 5 weeks per period, 20 weeks per year devoted just to writing and reviewing AGPs seems like a lot (not counting the two weeks after AGPs are due for the AA review and final community review). This is something to think about and discuss as we consider more tightly integrating Flock into the AGP process as well, as @LouisGrx pointed out. Thanks again
I don’t have a strong opinion on this one, I think if people end up submitting earlier in the process it will allow some time for community discussion prior to being locked for the association review. This definitely feels desirable, but I also feel like this is a case where social/culture/norms would probably be sufficient.
Whether or not this passes, I will probably personally adopt a policy of voting no on last minute proposals unless there is some sort of extenuating circumstance.