Good for which Public?

If we want to fund public goods for the Optimism Collective we first need to define: what is good for the collective? Which mechanisms can we use to coordinate and share these ideas that are more efficient than hours long posts in a forum? Do members of the collective have the same perceived sense of what good means? Good within which spheres of influence? Which good is more desirable vs other goods?

This is a theoretical hack. The research I did was to look into what kind of metrics are out there to evaluate the impact a project is having and how badgeholders have previously coordinated to reach a consensus on what they reward through RetroPGF.

1. With the new iteration in application forms we will see the projects being asked to provide metrics into the impact they have been having in the Optimism Collective. We will need these data to be easily consumable so the metrics can be displayed in a number of ways for badgeholders.
2. Previously badgeholders have shared their scoring criteria on the governance forum. This project enables the creation of evaluation templates by badgeholders to help guide others on how to conduct their allocation process based on how other value/process aligned badgeholders of their choice have done it.
3. Using sysmo, we will create a group to whitelist all badgeholders with an attestation. Through the identity provided by sismo badgeholders's interactions with the templates will be anonymous.
4. Badgeholders will be able to select evaluation frameworks others have suggested per each of the 4 categories for RetroPGF3 and use them to conduct their own evaluations.
5. All badgeholders will be issued Attestations with EAS proving they are a RetroPGF3 badgeholder.
6. Every badgeholder that wishes to issue a template will have to first sign-on with WorldID to demonstrate they are a human being and are only submitting one template per category and second, be validated as having being attested as a badgeholder.
7. Select your template and vote!
8. Analyze the results: Once the voting has been completed the following metrics will be used to analyze and improve the system.

1. Number of badgeholders that selected each framework for their analysis
2. Scoring by badgeholder on how useful the template was for their evaluation
3. Number of templates created per badgeholder
4. Voting alignment based template selection (was there an inherent bias or were badgeholders still able to get to a different result?)

Having these metrics will: A) Help improve the interface of the app B) Identify which badgeholders have created more impact in supporting fellow badgeholders C) Which metrics are most valuable in the allocation process (this can then be thought to projects applying for RetroPGF). D) Compare if badgeholders have voted in alignment with the values of the optimism collective.

Hacky part: I tried hard to understand how best to query data from Githubs GraphQL API to pull data from opensource projects dependencies so as to pull the impact OSS projects are having on other OP project is. But the data isn't easy to get and I didn't find many other examples of such use. Will need to review Drips better.