Fully combined decision

Fully combined decision for selecting priorities, ideas and contributors

Overview

A fully combined decision is where voters will select the priorities, ideas and contributors in a single process. This means proposals in this type of process will contain one or multiple priorities, ideas and contributors that voters will then decide between.

Very high voter participation time required (Score - 1)

For voters to participate they need to read, understand and compare all of the proposals with the priorities, ideas and contributors that are suggested. Voters must participate in the entire funding process with the entire decision making in a single vote. Voters are unable to partially participate in some of the funding process separately.

High voter decision complexity (Score - 2)

The voter must digest and understand the priorities, ideas and contributors being suggested to them before making any decision. Voters must analyse the tradeoffs between each combination of priorities, ideas and contributors. This greatly increases the decision complexity as a voter may want to endorse certain priorities or ideas but not the contributors who are attached to that proposal and vice versa where they fully support the contributors involved but not the ideas or priorities they are suggesting.

Very low voter expressiveness (Score - 1)

If a voter wanted to select any specific priorities, ideas or contributors they would be unable to do so at the voting stage unless the exact combination of priorities, ideas and contributors was already submitted as a voting option. The voter can only choose between what the contributors submit as their own preferred combination.

Very high funding outcome influence (Score - 5, Multiply by importance of 4/5 or 0.8, Final Score - 4)

The voters decision will influence exactly how contribution efforts are being directed through the selected proposals that define the priorities, ideas and contributors involved.

Very high voter decision change complexity (Score - 1)

To make future changes to previous decisions an entire new proposal would be needed to suggest any changes to the priorities, ideas or contributors in a similar proposal based on the exact change that were needed. Alternatively the ecosystem would need to introduce a separate change process to make changes to these different areas. The obvious issue with this however is it then adds in even more processes and complexity to the funding process. If the processes were independent then voters would be able to reuse the same systems they used for the initial vote to make changes

Total score = 9 / 24