Hi @Blacksheep & @Dacha -
I’ll let @Sofia_Alum answer for herself, of course, but as I’ve been working closely with the OWS team I wanted to respond to some of the points raised here as well.
Quality is an interesting topic - and one that all parts of the Community are discussing at length on a regular basis. No Guild more than OWS I would imagine - which you can see in how the Rolling Rewards and Opportunities are adjusted with care month after month to continue to encourage Sandboxers to contribute as meaningfully as possible to the NEAR ecosystem. And awarding them for it accordingly. This is an evolving process and involves a lot of reaction to what Sandbox contributors are interested in doing with what projects/Guilds are looking for so it has had its stops and starts over the past months.
Creating templates and strong standards limits creativity so personally I have a hard time enforcing them, especially in an environment like the OWS where we are encouraging people to “play, learn, and earn.” The playing and learning comes first and we don’t want to stifle that, merely direct it. This is why the Quality Guidelines were posted a few months ago. If you have thoughts on these guidelines and how they can be improved, please comment on that post.
Can you provide specific examples for this? These are very strong claims that should be addressed. If you feel that the moderator reviewing your proposal had not adequately explained in private message on Discord why certain items were rejected or accepted, let’s address those instances exactly.
It would be great to see both of your thoughts and comments on this Forum post On Community-Driven Accountability where we’re hoping to encourage conversation on how community accountability, quality standards/guidelines, or items of this nature can be handled by the community for the community.
We have increased the number of OWS moderators - and this is a good thing! This means more support throughout the month for Sandboxers, especially at the end when there is an urgent need for reward reviews so folks can get their payouts as efficiently as possible. It also means the growth of the OWS regionally-focused initiatives, so we’re expanding content created in other languages & support/projects for specific linguistic populations so English does not have to be the only language you can contribute in for the OWS.
These initial moderators were hand-selected in Sept/Oct based on the demographics/linguistic needs of the OWS, stated interest in the contributor form to be more involved, and previous activity within the OWS. For this experimental pilot and first instance of hiring Regional Coordinators (as part of the moderator team) we kept the hiring curated, but look for full open calls for new language-based roles in the new year as we further develop this initiative. More info about this to come in the OWS roadmap for Dec-May, which will be posted here on the Forum soon!
This applies to Monish & p0k’s roles, which was already explained last month in a comment here.