form an independent committee of sorts that has some sort of voting procedure (and maybe a veto period?) and all sorts of useful features like that and that votes or otherwise agrees on how impact in a project should be allocated
Yes, have not extensively thought about the way in which agreement is approximated efficiently and except the committee can include the concerned people.
form a committee that is trusted by everyone who was around Stanislav Petrov at the time and might’ve also had an influence and that then allocates the impact among all these “participants.”
Yes, like that. Some could allocate some shares to themselves and each other. For example the person who taught Petrov that “any U.S. first strike would be massive” (Wiki) could attribute about 20%, the people who showed the data can attribute each 1% for not appealing for escalation, the superiors can attribute 10% for sound management and suggest that the radar people should attribute nothing because blindly following orders is the standard, etc.
There is no strong cultural norm around how impact should be allocated among organizers, funders, and maybe some pro-bono instructors, but still the set of people who need to be considered is fairly limited.
Maybe, for the multiplicative impact, funders attribute everything net of anything which is done by the good will of others. For example, if funders hire a part-time teacher to develop a curriculum, then they attribute 100% of the development. If the teacher does it in their free time, they get 100%. If they take a 50% cut, each gets 50% (only considering two participants). For additive impact, the additional effort compared to the pay grade of the person can be considered. For example, an instructor paid $20/hour doubles the impact compared to an average instructor paid that rate, then they get 50%. Workshop participants should also be considered? They should get the share of multiplicative impact similarly based on to what extent this is compulsory or optional and additive based on the premium participation quality compared to the average participants.
even that person would not deem them to be worth their time
Yes, maybe if they can have the participants with short descriptions what they did on a board and they can just click to add a connection with a percentage, or a person or a description.
some norms that we could set that will establish for some subset of projects (say, all since the norm was established) that impact can be assumed to be allocated according to some simple rule unless otherwise specified…
The claimant gets all and should distribute it according to their best knowledge (recipients must be able to decline all or a part of the share). Non-claimants can see the list of certificates and contact the claimant for the share of impact they consider fair with a brief justification. Anyone can suggest a non-claimant, who then can choose to be notified.
For example, if funders hire a part-time teacher to develop a curriculum, then they attribute 100% of the development.
Do you mean that if someone is already hired and paid to do a job, that job should not, by default, be considered additionally rewarded through an impact allocation? Or at least if someone is paid at market rate?
Anyone can suggest a non-claimant, who then can choose to be notified.
That seems useful. I would like to err on the side of making sure that more rather than fewer people need to be explicitly asked for their consent for this. Otherwise it’s too easy for someone to miss the call. That’s sort of the opening pages of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. xD
Yes, have not extensively thought about the way in which agreement is approximated efficiently and except the committee can include the concerned people.
Yes, like that. Some could allocate some shares to themselves and each other. For example the person who taught Petrov that “any U.S. first strike would be massive” (Wiki) could attribute about 20%, the people who showed the data can attribute each 1% for not appealing for escalation, the superiors can attribute 10% for sound management and suggest that the radar people should attribute nothing because blindly following orders is the standard, etc.
Maybe, for the multiplicative impact, funders attribute everything net of anything which is done by the good will of others. For example, if funders hire a part-time teacher to develop a curriculum, then they attribute 100% of the development. If the teacher does it in their free time, they get 100%. If they take a 50% cut, each gets 50% (only considering two participants). For additive impact, the additional effort compared to the pay grade of the person can be considered. For example, an instructor paid $20/hour doubles the impact compared to an average instructor paid that rate, then they get 50%. Workshop participants should also be considered? They should get the share of multiplicative impact similarly based on to what extent this is compulsory or optional and additive based on the premium participation quality compared to the average participants.
Yes, maybe if they can have the participants with short descriptions what they did on a board and they can just click to add a connection with a percentage, or a person or a description.
The claimant gets all and should distribute it according to their best knowledge (recipients must be able to decline all or a part of the share). Non-claimants can see the list of certificates and contact the claimant for the share of impact they consider fair with a brief justification. Anyone can suggest a non-claimant, who then can choose to be notified.
Do you mean that if someone is already hired and paid to do a job, that job should not, by default, be considered additionally rewarded through an impact allocation? Or at least if someone is paid at market rate?
That seems useful. I would like to err on the side of making sure that more rather than fewer people need to be explicitly asked for their consent for this. Otherwise it’s too easy for someone to miss the call. That’s sort of the opening pages of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. xD