I keep reading those threads filled various comments and suggestions to modify the strategy. May I suggest something with regard to this process.
From my experience, from similar processes where I used to work hands on, typically it would be organised in the following way, with some modifications of course, but this is the general idea.
-
We are missing a single table, where at least one “basic” or call it “general” scenario would be displayed. It would be clearly formatted, so that anyone can read it. We can incorporate various rules and tools to allow participants to introduce changes and suggestions to this table, so that it would still be in interpretable format after suggestion is introduced. This would require some “hard” rules, which everyone has to follow in order to introduce changes, and “track changes” tool, allowing to clearly see what were the changes and how they would impact “basic” scenario.
-
Within the framework of document (1) build QA tracking log, which would include fields like - author / question / date of question / response / who responded / when / history of responses / maybe assign some rank to what extent suggestion was acceptable / actions taken as in were there in changes introduced into “basic” scenario as per this discussion / what was the impact on the output value
This is certainly not a fixed approach, more like a suggestion how make a process more efficient. It would allow to easily track input from the community, and track the debate. When this document would actually be implemented, it would most likely contain different / modified structure to what I outlined above.
Google sheet perhaps, with different rights for everyone to manage the document. It would require some effort, but I could build this.
Otherwise if this discussion would continue in similar fashion, very soon, forum will be overrun with threads, suggestion, numbers and so on. As more time passes by like this, it would be increasingly difficult to disentangle everything. Some good ideas may be lost in the process, some people may feel unhappy about having their ideas not being considered.
Once this framework is setup, and rules to edit it are established I would suggest to push responsibility of actually displaying information correctly and in readable form to the person who is making a suggestion. Alternatively they could approach me for example, I would interview the person, to fully understand the nature of idea and implement it in the table.
EDIT: this look a lot like something I’ve seen in the past - very long chain of e-mails from different people, putting in a lot of different, sometimes conflicting opinions. It would be impossible to keep track of and put together efficiently. Corporate setting is more rigid, in a sense that there is less space for such discussions, because the final say would be with director who would steer the discussion. Even though that this is the case, these things can get messy. Given that we are a DAO, and collective input is a basic requirement, then building a tool like I described above is pretty much a necessity.
EDIT2: How do I know all of this? I used to work in corporate finance, executing fairly complex deals. These kind of processes involve careful and disciplined management of financial information continuously flowing from different sources.