Task milestone based contribution logs

Recording contribution logs through the completion of milestone tasks involved in a project


Task milestone based contribution logs mean that a project has been broken down into milestones. Each milestone would have a set of tasks that need to be completed within that milestone. Contributors would submit evidence of any execution efforts when they have completed a milestone.

Very low contribution measurability (Score - 1)

The time taken to complete each milestone is different as it is defined by the contributors who are involved in the initiative. The amount of contributors involved in each milestone could be different. This approach is the least measurable and most difficult to compare with others as there is much higher variability in what can be submitted. A lot more work has to be done in isolation on a specific team's execution to work out whether they have in fact made fair and reasonable contribution efforts and whether they have been performant or not.

Very low contribution log accuracy (Score - 1)

Completed milestones can make it harder to understand exactly who has executed what outputs and exactly how long they spent on the tasks involved. Task milestones could include individual contribution information which would help to make it easier to compare individual performance. However this would also be the time periods involved in that execution. If both individual contributions and time periods are added then this ends up becoming an individual time based approach as well as a task milestone approach! Logs providing evidence for completion of task milestones by themselves do not provide much contribution accuracy.

Low reputation building usability (Score - 2)

Contribution logs would cover the milestones that a team completes. This contribution log structure makes it more difficult to create long term reputation as the milestones for each idea are different in scope and size, making it more difficult to make comparisons between different teams and make any historical comparisons. Limited measurability makes it more difficult to have confidence that the team is performing well and improving over time without community members doing a sufficient amount of observation themselves. The other issue is that teams can also change and introduce new people and lose others. Teams change naturally over time so this factor reduces the confidence in this structure of contribution logs as an approach for reputation building. Milestone based contribution logs would be more useful for reputation building in the situations where the teams stayed the same and ideas being executed were similar to previously executed ideas. The more that these teams and ideas change over time the less valuable these contribution logs are for building reputation.

Very low performance measurement usability (Score - 1)

For comparing different teams performances there is a complexity in comparing the contribution efforts of these teams when milestones based contribution logs are used. This is due to the differences in the milestones and the amount of work involved. The only easy way to understand whether a team is performing is to review how effectively they complete their milestones against other similar milestones. Ecosystems could also review how long they predicted the milestone would take against how long it actually took to complete. Teams can change over time and individuals could each have differing levels of performance within a team. Milestone based contribution logs donโ€™t help with determining how performant each team member has been. There could be an increased difficulty in determining whether a team change was a positive or negative outcome for improving the performance of that team without knowing how performant each individual was.

Low future voting usability (Score - 2)

Milestone based contribution logs would be more useful when the team stays the same and the ideas they are executing are similar. If the team or ideas change over time there is a reduced amount of relevance for the contribution logs being a good indicator on whether the team will be effective at executing a more recently suggested idea. As teams and ideas change over time the value of previous contribution logs for voting could be limited. This factor can make the contribution logs less useful for ongoing funding decisions.

Very high game theory risks (Score - 1)

Contributors can manipulate and exaggerate both the time it takes to complete any given task or the scope of what is being executed. Giving contributors the full ability to set the scope and time period maximises their ability to manipulate these inputs. The fact that each milestone will be different from the other milestones and with any of the other projects only increases this ability to manipulate these inputs in a way that would benefit the contributors. Maximising flexibility for this specific area in disbursement means maximising the difficulty for the community to determine what is fair and reasonable across all of the unique milestones that get submitted.

Very low verification time required (Score - 3)

Moderators would only need to verify the milestones of each project which could result in verification checks being needed less than once a month. This approach would likely require the least amount of verification time due to the infrequency of the milestone submissions. The average time required to verify submissions for any verification approach should also reduce over time as the tools and processes improve.

Very low submission effort (Score - 3)

Task based milestone contribution submissions need to confirm that a predefined milestone has been completed. All that is needed for a contribution log submission is the evidence showing that each task within a milestone has actually been completed.

Total score = 13 / 36

Last updated