August 6th Meeting - The Two Round Format
So it's been another week of getting acclimated to fractally. Last week we used the new format of ranking people in two rounds instead of one. I was only there for the first round and our group came to consensus very quickly, but in the post-meeting there were comments about how it became more difficult to rank people in the second round. There were also a few comments that the lowest rank in the second round should get more rewards than the top ranked in the first round because it took time to participate in the extra round. Right now the lowest ranking in the second round and the highest in the first round both get 3 points.
In our official meeting I was grouped with two fractally team members, Dan Singjoy who did a voluminous amount of work and Carlos who invited around 400 people to fractally and was active on Twitter. I shared my Hive blog contributions to the group. We generally had consensus that the two team members who work on fractally daily should get the most amount of respect along with Dan. I edged out Carlos but it was hard to compare contributions. Carlos invited many, and two signed up so that could end up being valuable if the new invited members start contributing actively.
I also attended Duane's AW fractally meeting on August 11th. That was also interesting. We used the original one-round format. Marco made a good point and mentioned that people should be recognized for consistent attendance. He also mentioned people who weren't recognized enough in the past should get more respect. I agreed with both those points. Marco also mentioned we should use previous rankings as a guide to determine the current respect rankings. Perhaps those who haven't ranked high previously should be given higher rankings to even things out. While it can be informative to use past rankings, I don't believe we should try to equalize outcomes. Past ranking data should only be used to support the claim that someone might not have gotten enough respect in the past. Another interesting comparison was between Duane who organizes and leads these meetings and Dan Singjoy who again did a voluminous amount of work. So comparing leadership vs hustle is an interesting dynamic to compare. This time around Dan got the nod for his hustle and I agreed with the consensus although I generally favor leadership. The last interesting takeaway is that some people will be more humble than others about their contributions. Coneman pre-faced his statement with 'I didn't do much this week', but then went on to list many things he did for Alien Worlds. The two key objectives for the AW fractal is to: 1) help AW 2) help DAO governance. I was able to discuss our bitcashBank team's dBoard project that could be the critical missing tool for DAO governance. I mainly spent most of the time fundraising this week so at first it didn't seem like fundraising for a project was much of a relevant contribution, but after some thought I think it is. It brings awareness about a potentially powerful DAO tool & helps bring in the financial support necessary to bring the DAO project into existence.
BTW you guys should check out the dBoard grant proposal on Pomelo and would appreciated 1 or a few EOS donation.
Fractal Teams vs Independent Fractals
I made a mistake last week when I wrote that the Eden Fractal was only a team. Dan Singjoy corrected me and mentioned there is both an independent Eden Fractal and an Eden fractal team under the Genesis fractal. So there are three independent fractals that I'm aware of right now: Genesis Fractal, Alien Worlds Fractal and the Eden Fractal.
In the August 6th pre-meeting @dan mentioned that because the Genesis fractal is still small it is better to create a fractal team under the Genesis fractal first before creating an independent fractal. After some thought I think that makes sense with the UGDP fractal. In the post-meeting Discord session for those who weren't able to advance, I was able to chat with several other fractally members. One member was very offended being booted off the post-meeting call without warning. (Note: Joshua and the team mentioned they planned to improve the process, but had to kick people out of the zoom in order to conduct the second round properly.) I spoke with Sebata who informed us about freeos.io, an EOS project with its own variation on UBI. Jay, Carlos and I had a discussion about UGDP and I believe both signed the petition of support on the UGDP website. . That was great and I appreciate the support.
Conclusion
I've learned a lot about the fractally process so far after attending two Genesis fractal meetings and two AW fractal meetings. The process and conversations are pleasant, civil and does build trust. A contribution tracking tool that people can use to input & track contributions will be the most useful for me. Sometimes people will forget what they did or not properly articulate their contributions. I keep having trouble keeping track of other people's contributions. Hence if everybody can record their contributions beforehand, others can just quickly read & scan the written contributions for a few minutes in the beginning of the meeting in silence. That would help the consensus process significantly and the conversation could start with just expanding around what's written.
Crypto Currency, its digital money.
Congratulations @merivercap! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 20 posts.
Your next target is to reach 50 replies.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!