---
# System prepended metadata

title: Curation and Permission
tags: [Permission, Curation]

---

---
###### tags: `Curation` `Permission` 
---

# Curation and Permission

### Questions / Problems
- How do we invite everyone to contribute to a project or a prompt, or even to devise their own projects and prompts? 
- How do we curate contributions and understand their qualitative differences?  
- What is our metric for alignment? 
- How do we think-feel about our aesthetic sensibilities? What is a good stylistic fit and what could be deemed unacceptable? Pluriversality does not mean universal relativism.
- Who curates? Who is the curator? How do we curate curators? Via permissions, forgiveness, or otherwise? Who will decide?

### (Provisional) Responses
- I am the curator, reluctantly, because someone has to be.
- Articulating a new role should be accompanied by the responsibility of getting explicit about the scope of that role: motivations, constraints, methodologies, etc.
- An attempt at a curatorial method: we need a template.

### (Provisional) Template
- Every project/proposal might be evaluated according to its capacity to:
    - ID an audience
    - ID a specific problem
    - ID a value proposition
- In addition to scoping an idea according to this rubric, a new proposal should also:
    - consist of more than 1 person
    - ID a point person to be held accountible
    - articulate a style & cadence of reportage to manage expectations
- After an initial gestation/pilot period, the team should be competent in expressing:
    - the goals of the initiative
    - how the goals align with the pluriverse/solarpunk/ethereum/regen ethos
    - how they will accomplish their goals
 
### Lifecycles
- Any new project should roughly follow this process:
    - Phase 1: declare intentions with the above template, assemble a team, outline a pilot period
    - Phase 2: work in public towards an initial proof of concept, share knowledge across the community, define goals beyond pilot period
    - Phase 3: submit Snapshot sentiment proposal, submit economic model (if any), receive signal to coninue or discontinue

### Permission
- Who can submit projects? A: anyone, everyone
- Who screens project submissions? A: the curator, with a strong/immediate exit-to-community intention
- Who can opine and vote on submissions? A: everyone at first, eventually permissioned

### Incentives
- Incentive for pariticpation are in two forms: cultural and economic
    - Cultural: we are working towards a pluriversal think tank of emergent strategy where the primary value prop is a network of sympathetic peers to help ideas come to life
    - Economic: all projects will require some kind of financial support, which may take the form of direct grants or strategy to help bootstrap and sustain the labors through more creative/regenerative means

### Criticisms
- This form of centralized curation flow is unsustainable.
- We might consider it a jumping off point for designing a better flow, including attracting other interested folks who want to be involved in curation/permission/evaluation methods.
- Once we get some other people involved, curation can move from signal voting to Coordinape quadratic voting mechanisms and transpire across a pool of horizontal peers.
- Anyone/everyone should feel entitled to propose an alternative flow, so long as it is justified. 
