Update regional_communities.md #2
Conversation
Pulled content from widget-specs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- the community requirements will need to get more feedback and more thoughts.
- need to go through a style / typo check (editors should do that)
- voting mechanism should be defined
- observation: community with centralized admin and ban / silence feature is not different than a moderated discussion board.
- need to define what is happening in Social DB and what is happening in a custom smart contract
- IMHO, by default, the community itself should be a DAO (so no owner by default).
specs/regional_communities.md
Outdated
| Status: Draft | ||
| Category: NEAR Social | ||
| Created: 2023-04-19 | ||
| Replaces: https://github.com/near-ndc/widget-specs/blob/main/specs/regional_communities.md |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a new version of the same document. Meaning of Replaces is to replace other, different spec. For example. Let's say we have kudos with approach A. After few weeks of drafting, we do completely new design with approach B. Instead of overwriting document, we may want to keep both specs.
So, this should be empty for now.
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # Spec-<Number>: <Title> | ||
| # Spec-2: Regional Communities Widget | ||
| This community-driven spec is a collaborative community-led effort to create a functional specification for a widget to be developed. The goal is to bring clarity and alignment to the deliverables for developers to deliver a functional widget that meets the requirements. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This community-driven spec is a collaborative community-led effort to create a functional specification for a widget to be developed. The goal is to bring clarity and alignment to the deliverables for developers to deliver a functional widget that meets the requirements. | |
| A collaborative community-led effort to create a functional specification for a widget to be developed. The goal is to bring clarity and alignment to the deliverables for developers to deliver a functional widget that meets the requirements. |
| ## Summary | ||
| This widget will help users find, join and interact with communities that are in their region, speaks their language, and/or are aligned with their interest. It provides a natural way of growing all the regional communities within NEAR, emphasising belonging and natural community growth rather than competition. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| This widget will help users find, join and interact with communities that are in their region, speaks their language, and/or are aligned with their interest. It provides a natural way of growing all the regional communities within NEAR, emphasising belonging and natural community growth rather than competition. | |
| Regional Communities widget helps users to find, join and interact with communities that are in their region, speaks their language, and/or are aligned with their interest. It provides a natural way of growing all the regional communities within NEAR, emphasizing belonging and natural community growth rather than competition. |
| ## Other potential names for this widget: | ||
| List of possible names: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Other potential names for this widget: | |
| List of possible names: | |
| Other potential names for this widget: |
| - Temporarily silence the user for a week | ||
| - Silence the user until un-silenced (perhaps after taking some corrective action) | ||
| - Banning the user with chance of reapplying | ||
| - Banning the user with chance of reapplying (permanently) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what's the difference between the 2 cases above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Missing a word "no" in the last one.
| These measures can be designed such that each increasing level of banning must be preceeded by the milder forms before it can be implemented. E.g. must silence the user for a day before can silence them for a week. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Manage a Community | ||
| Communities should be open and welcoming, not closed for elite members only. We should design them such that members have as much powers as possible, and that admins are given as few god-like options as possible. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
idea: no admin by default. Community is DAO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No admin: I like it. But how do we prevent potentially disastrous actions, such as a malicious member renaming the community and changing the purpose? A majority community vote is not a good option, as it's proven to be very hard to get quorum votes within loosely affiliated and large communities.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Community is DAO: Needs definition of what a DAO is. If the admins are thought of as Council members then that's a DAO too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
such as a malicious member renaming the community and changing the purpose? A majority community vote is not a good option, as it's proven to be very hard to get quorum votes within loosely affiliated and large communities.
Each community should have it's parameters to reach consensus (eg, min quorum, could be % or fixed number, eg 10)
| - South Korea | ||
| - Russia | ||
| - Vietnam | ||
| - South America |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we have regions, then South America should be also split down into countries.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had a thought that we should just follow some conventional list of countries. But I don't like it. Too much risk that someone will complain about inclusion or exclusion (Gaza, Kurdistan, Cyprus, Taiwan, etc). It also gets hard to manage when you go inside countries. So I prefer an open and evolving hierarchy as proposed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add more then less. I thing there will be more people happy if we add Taiwan then exclude it at all.
Co-authored-by: Robert Zaremba <[email protected]>
Remove previous version of file from "replaces" field
Pulled content from widget-specs