Do you think that Catalyst is permissioned? And if not, why do you think so few Cardano members are actually bothering to engage?
Again, I don’t think this doesn’t exist due to any ill will or anything like that. The IOG Catalyst folks are just very few. Daniel R is one guy, Marek and TK do lots of the distribution and then there’s Kriss. Harris warren does some stuff but those are the 5 I know work with community facing aspects of Catalyst.
I think the setting up and maintenance of such an authoritative hub will be one of the urgent tasks in the Dework were now creating! Keen on the job?
I actually tried to push to move some discussions to the forum but people just didn’t use it. Discussions kept happening on telegram and so that’s where the “Catalyst subculture” being centred, in particular the Proposal assessor chat (formerly CA). The solution has been the creation of ad-hoc Google docs as the ones I’ve linked, and Daniel R adding links to those (eg the Fund 10 TODO) in pinned messages and Friday catalyst newsletters.
Some core beliefs that brought me to Cardano were its decentralised nature, permissionless access and some self control over privacy. Yet to be properly involved in the Catalyst discussions I need to register a mobile phone number with my government to make it easy for big tech and Govts to link everything.
Well, the latest thing was the very post that started this thread, which does contain quite some hours of work to a) pin down why I think it is urgent that some things get fixed and b) also give some not too short proposals how it could be fixed.
Of course, these proposals would need some more details to be implementation-ready. But for that I would first like to see where to put it, so that it does not go totally unnoticed. And to also see what proposals there already are. That’s why
is one of the TL;DR points of it.
Not involved in Catalyst? Yes, that’s part of the frustration screaming out of this whole thread that it’s near impossible to become involved. You have to navigate this Gordian knot of Telegram chats, town halls, circles, and Google Docs to even start. And since you said
you will probably understand that that is not acceptable.
Not involved in Cardano? I think I could make a quite good case that that could not be farther from reality.
And over the months I have met quite a few people who are also very active in Cardano (much longer than me), but not in Catalyst, because it is just inaccessible.
Never considered that. Why should I? I am not a PA, just a voter with some knowledge about (voting) systems. And one of my proposals above is more or less to abolish (or at least drastically change) the PA phase … for reasons. Do you deem it intuitive to discuss that (or changes to the voting system) in the PA chat without even being one? Are you saying that proposals are considered from the PA chat, but not from the general Catalyst chat (where I am screaming into the void for quite some time)?
Somehow part of the problem: Where do they gather feedback? And why only there? And why do I have to search for it without even a homepage guiding me to it?
That is not a process at all. How should anyone for whom Cardano is already a time-intensive hobby enough get involved with something that promises to be yet another equally time-intensive one? Just to navigate, not even doing something productive.
Maybe that’s part of the reason why the infeasibility of “Daedalus Turbo” did not come up in the assessment, but people knowing just a bit about the Cardano technology were instantly horrified when it became discussed more widely: Nobody has the time to do both – being involved in Cardano and being involved in Catalyst.
IOG could just put more people on it? At least until it has matured enough to be left to the community?
Even if for some reason their “evolve the ecosystem” budget does not have enough left (hard to imagine), they would at the moment be the ones to decide that it’s gonna be funded from the treasury. Putting it through the usual proposal process cannot seriously be the plan. Why should people vote on the system they currently vote on being financed for another round? And what should happen if they decide to not finance it?
First heard about that Discord from you. Is it somehow official? Since you are a fan of decentralisation, it seems more a grass-roots thing. How promising is it that its results will be picked up? How many competing endeavours are there?
“It is supposed to be decentralised.” is a very cheap excuse for not providing the basic infrastructure and processes. You need to bootstrap something like that! And the current non-process is not such a bootstrap.
And “testing the waters a bit” is a bit little for something draining “our” treasury by the millions each fund. And for something that is – I stand by this claim – fundamentally broken.
By the way: There is an example in the governance space of Cardano which is not perfect, but works far and away better than Catalyst: CIPs – Everybody can read in CIP-0001 how they work and even if it is sometimes outdated, it is enough to get you started. The process can be changed by PRs against that CIP itself. All relevant communication channels are visible on the Github repo. It is graspable.
And that needs some central hub. In order to be as decentralised as possible, there have to be clear ways to connect something to this hub. But not providing a hub at all and let the community work around this gap cannot be it.
In some way, of course! Nobody except the holders of the BFT keys can pay out treasury funds. That’s as centralised as it gets. The voting and its evaluation is done behind closed doors at IOG. As centralised and permissioned as it gets.
Discussions, PA/vPA process, … are not permissioned, of course. They are “just” made inaccessible by the in-group nature of the space.
I think this is a great point (and I agree with it 100%), but I don’t even think that model is decentralized by any stretch of the imagination.
If you think about a peer-to-peer network, a distributed one, that’s all about individuals making decisions for themselves- but doing so from a position of understanding and accepting any benefits or consequences.: individuals making decisions for themselves, all interactions by mutual consent.
I think that’s a great model, where it works, but the accounting gets very difficult when you try to apply a one-sized-fits-all-model to anything: too many dimensions, to hard to account for everything, everywhere. You need to break the problem into smaller pieces.
Nobody except the holders of the BFT keys can pay out treasury funds. That’s as centralised as it gets.
The exact opposite of that “each individual makes choices for themselves” model - would be “everyone collectively making decisions that affect to everyone else - without their consent” - and just being able to vote doesn’t imply consent.
Participatory democracy is a political system that comes out of a moral philosophy of personal choice, individual responsibility and human rights - but there are a lot of other ways to get to to there as well - collectivism doesn’t become any less collective when you increase the size of the central committee.
In 1957, Leopold Kohr wrote in Breakdown of Nations, “whenever something is wrong, something is too big” … (it’s a classic about the dangers of centralization)
Oversimplified as this may seem, we shall find the idea more easily acceptable if we consider that bigness, or oversize, is really much more than just a social problem. It appears to be the one and only problem permeating all creation. Wherever something is wrong, something is too big.
…
Which means that, if a society grows beyond its optimum size, its problems must eventually outrun the growth of those human faculties which are necessary for dealing with them.
These themes are also reflected in the work of Hayek and Von Mises, who talk about calculation and knowledge problems in their critiques on socialism; that beyond a certain point, problems get to big and to complicated to solve - which leads into what decentralization actually is: breaking intractable, multi-dimensional problems into a smaller problems that are actually solvable.
WHAT CATALYST ACTUALLY NEEDS
It needs a constitution that sets out roles and responsibilities, a clear segregation or powers, accountability and an ability to replace people who are not doing a good job. It needs to break this huge, intractable, big mess into a smaller set of issues that can be worked on by more narrowly focused groups.
and I am really sorry you get offended if you think that isn’t decentralization just because you somehow talked yourself into the idea that collectivism without accountability is decentralization. It’s not.
A central committee is not less central if you add a bunch more members and let them vote with their wealth.
I agree with this. To see the consequences of getting this wrong (constitutional governance), see C. Bradley Thompson’s recent article You Kant Get There from Here where he outlines the failure of John Lock to cement the moral theory underlying the Declartion of Independence (moral decentralization), leading to a breakdown in moral guidance (a proper roadmap) for governance.
Joel Tarr in “Foundations of a Free Society” pieces together the underlying Austrian Economic principles with the more explicit economic moral principles in “Capitalism the Unknown Ideal” (Ayn Rand) showing how Von Mises had to invent Praxeology in order to overcome his lack of a properly formed moral theory–one that takes the individual mind more seriously.
I know this might seem out of place in a blockchain forum, but governance is a very important issue. The excitement I have for Cardano is the potential for individuals to have a lot of breathing room in a world where everything is becoming so stifling.
Things are messy now, but if you ever read the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist papers, you will know that it was messy then as well.
I hope we can do even better than they did.
Getting a proper moral underpinning isn’t simply “everyone needs to be happy.” There has to be an understanding of what human agency is, why its needed, and what it takes to maximize it.
Can we start with the very basics - what is the future of the catalyst - it seems a transitory social experiment at best atm with ad-hoc changes to participation tuning (amount leaked from treasury, participation baselines, pre-requisite requirements to those assessing being qualified, transparency of chain, etc), it’s a very educational social experiment to bring out flaws - but the participation bottleneck of a lot of long-term members was not the social side (I can only say until round 4, as repeated glittery words about what works and how everything is good - instead of replying to questions was a big turn-off).
For the first 4 rounds , we tried to chase if there is a clear roadmap about the use of jormungandr/jorvit, and how those private chains can be made public for analysis - I’ll be honest, being involved with the discussions around “what can be done with work spent on jormungandr codebase” , in spite of majority suggestions going with “transforming it into a parallel node implementation” - the pre-medidated thought of using that codebase for voting PoC was elected. Like ITN ( couple of management folks waking up to retirement of a centralised chain ), many of us learnt hard way to not spend too much effort into a transitory stream. Months down the line, this hasnt progressed much.
Losing a big chunk of those critical voices, the quality of discussions on technical front has since only degraded (while on social side , a lot of folks have put in a lot of sweat and time to make things better), I still cant fathom why it is considered OK to take out funds off treasury when the majority of community has not voted. Sure, it would mean incentives would need to align with participation in voting, and perhaps more thought could be put in to having ranked voting from qualified assessment stages to reduce proposals to numbers - which IMO is a good output, especially when we dont know the plans for voltaire. Amidst these, we had a lot of opaque decisions shoved , and not enough critic voices :
opaque feedback forms
decision of keeping ‘sidechains’ used private, as well as results (to be clear , I dont for an instant think there is anything malicious going on in voting results , but that’s not an excuse to keep going as-is)
election of Ideascale as primary platform (sorry to say - but it’s ugly, looks ancient, has nightmare of a search engine for 2012 (let alone 2022) , feels buggy and - again, centralised), in addition requiring seperate apps on phone and suggestions like using mobile emulators to use it on Desktop
no participation baselines, thus - no enforcement of quality of assessors or vCAs, no cap on baseline % of community voting (which means majority funds that remain on exchange stay there), having potentially unlimited number of proposals in a round, making it impossible for an average end user to vote
accounting that cannot be queried on-chain
Use of excel spreadsheets saved on google/github, absence of analysis patterns, etc
Am sure many of the above are minute, and probably some of those are gonna be debatable (like any opinion in chaotic decentralised world), but I really fail to see talking about philosophical stuff when the basic underlying platform is badly messed up.
So if I’m reading this correctly, you just want one nice website that has something like “everything you need to understand, improve and discuss Catalyst” right?
I’m all for it. One of the things I raised was precisely the creation of such a gathered place. This is why Ideascale now has these types of links (except the “how to change catalyst” because it isn’t defined, and the reason it’s not defined is because I think IOG wants that process to emerge from within the community/they are still developing the model, see the treasury white paper)
No. UX sucks (as it does generally in web3 tbh). I saw a problem and, since I decided to also be a PA when I submitted a proposal, I learned about how it worked so I joined the PA chat. After seeing so many flaws I just couldn’t let it pass without at least trying to fix it…
There was a “Issues Dropbox” created by IOG (Daniel R) but even that was super obscure to find.
When we created this feedback document “TODO” for fund 10, then we simply asked IOG community Shepard Daniel to include it the weekly newsletter. I wish there was a more regularly maintained and “nice” website (PACE that hosts projectcatalyst.org would be a good candidate, but he’s just one guy and there’s a lot)…
I agree! That’s why one of the top priority tasks is to create a process, with the community. Do you want to pick up a shovel and join? Or do you want to hand it over to IOG and hope for the best?
Yup. And I think they have been expanding their team… but if I’m gonna guess, they wanted to community to self-finance these efforts through project catalyst. Which we’ve partially done, but there just aren’t enough people who care enough and have been willing to put in time + the fact that “governance/community” type challenges weren’t funded in the PAST TWO FUNDS.
It’s not official but as close as it gets. All people who have been involved in all the changes and guidelines writing from the past funds are there. There’s also a treasury financing efforts. It is the most promising venue, assuming you do put in the work needed. There is this endeavour which seeks to gather all initiatives and ideas to this one decentralised task management platform!
There’s no other competing initiative. AIM, PACE, SWARM , CC admin, community governance and oversight, and Catalyst school are other community initiatives but they’re not primarily about discussing, improving, and changing the system.
Nothing I disagree with here. I’m just giving you a path forward! Seeing how this has been the case for so long, we’re a few people who are taking matters into our own hands. You can choose to join in and increase our chances of getting changes through by fund 10 or you can keep on 0screaming into the void” as you aptly put it!
How exactly is it made “inaccessible by the in-group nature of the space” in your view (I can make a guess but I don’t want to put words in your mouth)? Is it the PA telegram group, the town halls, the difficulty in finding where everything is/how to change things?
What should be done (eg what could SWARM do) to make things better?
Just trying to take input so that more people can get involved! I’m not part of the community groups whose purpose is to build community and educate but I could forward things and create bounty tasks etc
Replacing Ideascale might maybe take longer, but hosting the voting results there – with more details and CSV versions for people who want to do analyses on them – should be doable in days.
The voting dApp and the presentation of the previously funded projects and their results – which was already promised – have to live somewhere, anyway. So, they should, of course, live on that site instead of being scattered somewhere on the Internet.
Personally, I’d love a very structured approach, where everything – past and current challenges, categories(?), proposals, assessments, voting results, … – is not only available as human-readable web pages, but also in machine-readable form, so that wallets, voting apps, analyses and evaluations have easy access.
I know that ideas are easier said than done in IT, I have enough construction sites at my (very much not crypto-related) work, but I also know that at least a start – setting up a small static website or an effing Wordpress and put the most important documents and links on it – is doable quickly. And I really have no understanding that it was not done at the very beginning.
Both!
I don’t particularly like the “pick up a shovel” response. The funds of the treasury somehow belong to all ADA holders, not just the ones who have the time, energy, and ideas to “join”. It is totally legitimate to want to raise an opinion on how they are managed without having the resources to go into it in depth. It is even legitimate to conclude that it’s better if they are not distributed at all than like that, that they should better just go into staking rewards. “Come into our time-draining space and do something!” is perfect derailing in that case.
But I do like my proposals enough that I’m inclined to invest that time.
Some of them do need something from IOG. For example, the “Combinable Public Recommendations” could be prototyped in a third-party voting application, but for that such applications would have to be made possible. I’d need an API, to not only get the signatures from the voters as in CIP 62, but also to submit the votes to their intransparent backend.
(Some technological deep dives would also be a welcome content for said central, authoritative Catalyst hub website. I found no other way to get to know what happens between the voting app and the Google Docs than ask some people who are here years longer than me. That’s not really worthy of a cryptocurrency – “Don’t trust! Verify!” – solution.)
More importantly, there needs to be a commitment by IOG to not just take some alleged consensus from the highly engaged in-group, but take the discussion and decision to the wider Cardano community, which – it seems – does have opinions on Catalyst that might not be aligned with the ones of the very active people on the inside.
In fact, we see that sometimes in voting results, when some proposals that were so well-received in the Catalyst bubble do not get funding, because the general Cardano public thinks differently, did not get the information, the Catalyst bubble does not see which impression you get if you mainly see it as a headline with some stars in the voting app.
…, which might very well have been the case here.
Didn’t grasp it on first sight. Seems to be something to set tasks and promise payments for people, not necessarily make visible competing solutions to the same problems and decide between them. But will look again and ask there. … But I’m quite sure, it’s not decentralised at all. It’s one totally centralised, totally Web 2.0 website – dework.xyz – linked to another totally centralised, totally Web 2.0 website – discord.com.
Yes, basically: Where and what is everything? Who does what and why? Why are there at least three Discord servers? Which Telegram groups are there? What is discussed where? Which topics were discussed, which projects presented in which meeting that I can see the recording of where? What’s the difference between “Governance Oversight” and “Circle”? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the different community portals to Catalyst? What improvement proposals on which level (assessment guidelines, radical alternatives to assessment, voting, vote evaluation, auditing, …) are there? Where is the discussion on them? Is it a discussion on the current execution or a discussion if we should maybe do it totally differently? Who decides? Why? …
In the end, this should all be answered on the central hub website above. But until then, an agreed upon introduction between all of the plethora of community initiatives, websites, councils, … would already be good.
Many good points have already been mentioned here, but what has always surprised me personally is the fact that the proposal reviewers are anonymous. That, along with (my feeling) that people often don’t seem technical enough, is becoming more and more of a problem. Why would someone who writes a devastating or overwhelming review hide behind anonymity? You have to give people the possibility to see who rates what and how often.
Nice post!!
I also wondering if it is doable to implement a cost for publishing the proposals in order to avoid spamming and make sure there is a real commitment behind.
Besides I believe dReps will do more bad than good.
After good discussions – Thank you for that! Please continue! – I see (not surprisingly) other proposals – in this thread and in the other spaces linked. Some might be combinable with mine, some are alternatives.
I’d like to get an impression on two (meta) questions that drove my initial post and the core demands at its end:
How urgent do you think improvements are?
Catalyst is fine as it is.
Catalyst needs ever-ongoing improvements, but we can continue the experiment and do them step by step.
Catalyst needs significant improvements, before the next fund is started.
0voters
How should improvements be found?
Catalyst is fine as it is.
The current approach – engaged community is working out improvements and Catalyst team implements the consensus – is working fine.
Improvements can be worked out in the engaged community, but all ADA holders should vote on them in the end.
We need a broad discussion about improvements in many different groups and a vote by all ADA holders in the end.
0voters
(Of course, this will be just people active in the forum who find this poll. And, of course, the result depends on my choice of questions and answers. But I hope it can at least give an impression.)
Great. I should vote but I don’t. Why? Too complex for the reasons you gave above, and frankly just takes way too much time.
Strongly believe there have to be better metrics published showing performance on previous funding rounds so there is a feedback loop and the system learns. Which projects did well, which bombed, which teams did not actually deliver against commitments and can no longer be trusted.
Building an open source VC is a very complex task. We should not expect to get this right straight out of the box!
Yeah all of this would be great. I think they started essentialcardano.io to at least fill the information part of this, but so far it hasn’t been utilised that much (IOG hasn’t marketed the website at all). Someone just need to do the job and submit but
You should’ve seen how it was in fund 6-7… there wasn’t even an Google sheets gathering all funded proposals, links to the guides, links to reporting form in one place, links to reports. Nor was there a mailchimp “old newsletters”. And I’m not even sure if the YouTube bio for the (1+ hour long) town halls had all relevant links. Now the Town halls are usually less than an hour, sometimes just 40 min even.
The Catalyst team is 20+ people strong but the community/communication team is like 2-3 people. That’s not enough. I have absolutely no clue as to why they didn’t expand it back in January.
One thing that might be worth mentioning for those who don’t know is that the Product owner of Voltaire suddenly and unexpectedly passed away in January.
Sorry if I came off as something like “join in and do something or shut up”. My thesis is that what we need first and foremost is good people actively contributing. Every chance I get, I encourage pick up a shovel because I see it as a necessity. And whether or not it is worth continuing despite the many flaws is a much more difficult question which I haven’t analysed enough to take an informed stance on. I’d have to consider the success of the ~1000 proposals that have been funded. There’s been plenty of amazing libraries and infrastructure that has been built out thanks to Catalyst. Sure, there’s waste but what’s the metric for success? 80% of Google employee projects fail. If we stop, what happens to our developer infrastructure projects? No other Web3 ecosystem has gone from 0 projects to more than 1000 in 12 months. There’s a real cost in slowing down, so trade offs need to be made.
Either way, IOG did say that they’re taking a longer break between rounds this time (finally they listened to that piece of feedback at least…) to properly have a look at the flaws etc. no start date for fund 10 has been announced.
Moreover, I don’t see how this idea of creating tasks to produce long form documents/research/alternative solutions is in any way orthogonal to “the funds belonging to all AD holders”. Perhaps I wasn’t clear but the idea is then that all of this would be disseminated as far and wide as possible within all possible Cardano community groups for feedback and input, before being put up for a vote and then hopefully implemented by IOG. Oh any and all changes ultimately require communication/collaboration with IOG. The AIM (cardanocataly.st) got access to the ideascale API after/around fund 7 I believe, and so has been able to provide a lot of value to the community since! Why hasn’t is been done before? No one has had time / been willing/been able to get paid to put in the effort to do it.
The treasury I mentioned that finance the remuneration for the people who do the research/develop the alternative ideas is based on a Catalyst proposal in fund7 (I think).
Projectcatalyst.org is run by PACE (George Lovegrove). It is an open GitHub repo which anyone can make pull requests to. It’s community held. Again, there’s just no one who has time to do it. This will also be one of the Dework tasks
I think this site would be the best candidate as it already ranks quite high in SEO terms.
I’m 100% an insider and I believe Im not an outsider in terms of views. There’s very little substantial content I disagree with in this entire forum thread, except possibly that we should pause Catalyst fully until it is “fixed” (wherever fixed means). Based on what do you get this idea that there’s misalignment?
I don’t like how you treat the Catalyst bubble as one big homogenous entity. The star rating is based on subsets of PAs, and is by no means a reflection of any type of consensus. Getting 4-5 stars doesn’t mean the project is great, it means the proposal follows the guidelines and is complete. dcSpark spent very little time on their proposals, got low stars and got funding because they have credibility. That’s totally fine in my view, the PAs did their part (in this case).
I tried to push for creating “Project Catalyst Improvement proposals”. I didn’t have much time to pursue it further. I think it’s a great idea and approach.
Thanks! These are great and would fit well as some Dework tasks (feel free to add them as tasks as you join and explore Dework, and if so, add me “Simon (Salen)” and JeremyB as reviewers if you end up doing it)
Decentralised is not a well defined concept and I don’t want to linger in this but yeah you’re right. I was a bit sloppy with the word decentralised. I think permissionless is more appropriate here. It is not under IOG nor the Cardano Foundation or Emurgo, the three big player in the Cardano space which, in my mind, means that it contributes to increasing decentralisation of power (informal).
I love this post. It is articulate and really highlights many of the problems being experienced with Catalyst. The issues you have highlighted @HeptaSean are likely a reason why many people who have become disillusioned with Catalyst (myself included), are not engaging with the process as much as they were in the early days when we were enthusiastic about the potential for change that Catalyst had.
Firstly, the point about a central source for everything Catalyst (i.e. an official website), was something I also championed in the early days. I have been part of Catalyst from the start, yet I still don’t know where to find everything. How then does someone new navigate this complex system? While I support the idea of decentralisation wherever possible, there are some capabilities that are disadvantaged by decentralisation. So having a “decentralise everything” approach, without ways to mitigate the problems it introduces in some areas, doesn’t work yet.
I couldn’t agree more about the PA/vPA process and therefore have nothing to add.
Tooling is also an important consideration. Given that IOG are still largely steering how Catalyst is executed, I believe the onus is on them (after all this time), to improve how access to data is made available.
I think ranked-choice voting is definitely the way only to go. The biggest challenge to this is the volume of proposals. I therefore suggested we test a multi-round approach to proposal funding (Community). This would allow the hard core voters (i.e. those voting now) to vote in round 1, to reduce the number of proposals that need evaluating. Prior to round 2 voting commencing, any proposals that have made it to round 2 that the community have major concerns over (e.g. Daedalus Turbo), can be discussed ahead of real money being distributed and if the concerns are legitimate the voters in round 2 should hopefully vote against it progressing to round 3. By the time we get to round 3, the quantity of proposals should be small enough that a larger number of ADA holders participate.
I would be keen to jump on a call with anyone interested in discussing this further. While text based mediums like this, discord and telegram are fine for casual discussion, they are too slow moving to make any real progress.
Great discussion. Few moments I figured to add some comments.
Heya - what sort of CSV do you have in mind?
Every newsletter has a directory of ‘past issues’ - it’s in top left corner.
Yes, they did. Here is a quick example from June 2021 - Fund5 TH
What are you missing in communication/community work?
‘Cooldown’ period between funds was introduced already in Fund8. In Fund9 - we’re building upon that experience.
It is not community held, it’s exclusively held by George afaik.
This is a standard practice in academic peer review circles. The basic premise is that it should shield reviewers from targeted attacks - and without that fear of retaliations can present their true opinion. Tho, system still is missing credentials that would allow us to level up - currently it is truly permission-less. Introduction of DIDs is fundamental. We’re very close to introducing some elementary DID on vPA level and based on learnings extending it to PA cohorts as well. Further, adding reputation model should help improve access/eligibility to write reviews based on the past performance. I recommend checking out some of the most recent work in anonymity in review work here by NASA. Interesting concepts with some great insights.
In coming month - long time coming - there will be an ‘official’ home for Project Catalyst - as in v1 landing page from which we’ll be iterating on. This will help with providing contextual framework in onboarding as well as keeping up with existing affairs.
One of the key deliverables is publishing more information from Jormungandr chain and ultimately - make it readable to people as well. ‘Catalyst Explorer’ is in the planned works and I think that will help a lot to clear up conversations.
It is generally accepted that Ideascale does not serve our present day needs as well as it should. It has served us to date but lining up gradual transition is underway.
Outcomes portal - part of the imagined Catalyst home page - will be serving this gap. Much work is being done to develop and deploy this.
Lastly, wrote this a while back. May be of an interest.
The basis for your result PDF would be a start. Plus number of wallets Yes and number of wallets No.
Not undisputed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review
(We already do 2. and 3., maybe 1. should also be there. Especially since reviewers in academia are invited based on the editors thinking that they are qualified to do it, which is very much not the case in our system.)
And it would be less of a problem if the reviews wouldn’t have such a huge impact on voting results, which they are not really made for:
Understood. There is a CSV output included with each PDF result directly. Perhaps, making it more visible would do a better job. I’ll take a note of it. You can find the historicals in the top left table here as well.