RE: What Are Your Thoughts On Curie? (A Community Survey)
I hate that this may come off negative, but my thoughts on Curie (or any groups like this) is it comes down to people. These aren't positions that are voted on as would be witnesses, or elected to.
Self-Designated would be one thing, but these groups do ask for support from the community, and really it boils down to support from a small % of users, the whales.
They have the potential of becoming "policing" organizations, where it doesn't matter if 1000 users agree if the right 10 disagree.
Curie specifically, I like the intent and the work done. I admit I get perturbed when I hear talk of operating expenses and compensated for our time as in my eyes it crosses a murky line between noble intent and a job paid to do. I agree it is needed currently, but it is needed as a result of a platform flaw that would otherwise be fatal, new user retention and recognition.
I know there is monetary accountability, but I am not sure there is personal accountability. A portion of these groups post regularly in order to meet an "operating budget" or grow their power to achieve their stated goals. I completely accept this at face value, but what happens if the day comes when one of these accounts decides to do something else? There is no recourse, it is their account, and not one they have had access to, but is ultimately not under their control.
While their is the provided financial accountability, there is little to no personal accountability.
Firstly, Curie is a democratic group. Posts are seen by at least three people before one is approved for curation. We are constantly listening to the community for feedback, and if ever there was a complaint regarding our curation choices, we would take it very seriously. We have made mistakes, and work on rectifying them quickly.
Curie is not a charity. We work 24x7, screen 2,000+ posts and upvote 150 posts every day. There are 5 people who work full-time or nearly full-time on this project. This is an organisation like any other, which does a lot of work and needs revenue to sustain it. A lot of the management and operations work is currently done where group members donate their time for free, but in the future we'd like to reward them financially too, as is fair. It's pretty much as simple as that. It's absolutely a job to do. Whether it is a job with noble intent, is up to you.
Once the DCG feature goes live, the revenue generation will be built directly into the system.
Look... I understand they are doing a job. I also understand the job is one that is necessary as a result of a flaw in the system your addressing (new user retention).
I very much dislike that there is no way to address or bring up issues or concerns similar to this without the concern being addressed as if it were an attack. Additionally, when it is stated very clearly this is a job for some, it makes me wonder if the root cause for the need will ever be addressed.
As an organization, there has been work done to be transparent in the details. I understand it, but what about personal accountability for it's members? Should a member who's account has directly grown in power as a result of contribution decide to go rogue for any reason, what then? They benefit from effort given to a group, and can take it from that group.
How is fair financial compensation determined? Should a member of one of these teams decide to leave, the account they have used and has grown in power to do the work of the group... does it leave with them? It is stated if a complaint is made for curation choices it is taken very seriously, how about member choices? In MY experience, because of the structure, lack of multi-sig features used means a member that acts poorly on behalf of, or perhaps acts out against members, is still either very vital to the work of the project, or more raising of funds is needed to build up another account.
I don't question at all it is done with noble intent, I do wonder if the organizational structure is done responsibly. Democratic implies leaders are chosen by voting, that has not happened. A select group designated themselves... the content they vote for is an internal democratic process, is that what you mean? @kevinwong acknowledges in his reply that there is in fact a trust of the people required... as a group, I do trust the motives and intent currently. That being said, I have already seen one run in with these groups result in a "we do not approve of his actions, but he is vital" response. Does that get easier to address the further along it is left unchanged, or do they simply become more and more vital?
No worries about it @clevecross - your concerns are not baseless. While most of us still have bills to pay etc, it's not an entirely cost-free job (however, there are some members of the team that are not taking anything for their effort). To echo some of @liberosist's comments, the whales supporting the initiative don't have much say over our curation other than their preferred genres, but most of them pretty much approve of the general curation that we're doing. And you're absolutely right about personal accountability - there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of some of use getting away with the account like @curie - we're pretty much operating entirely based on trust, built through the everyday grind of curation and (pretty open) communication. We could have relied on multi-sig features, but we're not doing that at the moment. The intents and motives of the core curie team is at least, resonating with each other on the individual level. Thanks for your input @clevecross - I really appreciate it!
Thanks for the great reply. It is not a concern about you or any particular group. I only worry about long term organizational accountability. A multi sig feature could make it more of an electable position and put responsibilities on the members as well.