Learning Description Program Context Action Taken
Giving Personalized Feedback to Applicants Applicants who expressed interested in individualized evaluation and assessment feedback received it, otherwise none was shared. The benefit of sharing this information, to help improve all projects, was highlighted in our discussions. Initially, we adhered to industry standards to avoid prolonged discussions with non-accepted applicants, which can bog down operations unduly. However, after careful consideration, we appreciate the value of personalized feedback and have now implemented this for all UAGP applicants. Share evaluation scores across each assessment rubric item, including short feedback privately.
Non-Accepted Applicant Survey The idea to conduct a survey with parties that have not been accepted to our program to canvass their opinions on process arose from our community discussions. We recognize the merit in soliciting feedback from all people who interact with the UAGP, including non-accepted applicants. However, we believe the most valuable insights come from accepted grantees, high-context delegates, and other closely involved stakeholders, as they provide deeper feedback on the program beyond the application process, whose inputs we feel are sufficiently served by the many open UAGP channels. Although important feedback, this is not standard practice and would prove cumbersome in operation. We feel confident our current channels are sufficient to cover and operationalize this type of feedback.
Offline Collaboration True to the nature of the industry, the preponderance of interactions are facilitated online. At the outset, UAGP was no exception to this. Through organic opportunties to interact with our grantees, including supporting some of our projects presenting at Demo Days in person, we appreciated the importance of offline collaboration for a strong grant program. Internalizing this experience and learning, we have committed ourselves to attending more industry IRL events, and make an effort to connect with UAGP grantees there.
Managing Community Interactions: Distinguishing Real Feedback vs. Spam In the DAO context, every voice counts. One instance of feedback of a non-accepted applicant involved large walls of text of Discord feedback. While there was a certain substance to some of the comments, it hijacked Discord as a communication channel for the DAO and was cumbersome for the UAGP team to respond to every detail in long text format. Offered 1-on-1 calls were not taken. While we are not PR professionals, it is sometimes challenging to determine what is actual objective feedback (that we should respond to) and which comments were potentially non-objective or frustrated (which we can empathize with on one level, as long as they remain within the professional realm). Balancing the desire to address all feedback while avoiding the more distractive and fruitless back-and-forth is a key learning for us in managing community interactions.

| We have hosted more Office Hours and community calls, specifically with an agenda to discuss topics of concerns, giving stakeholders an opportunity to voice feedback.

Further, providing personalized feedback to applicants proactively will ideally mitigate more public distractive/cumbersome conversations | | Incorporating Novelty & Quality into Assessment Rubrics | An applicant noted that quality and novelty of the application/project were not emphasized explicitly the evaluation rubric. | Project quality is implicitly judged by our evaluation criteria, but hadn’t been included as an individual point. This was an easy fix to avoid any future confusion. | To clarify, we’ve since added additional framing to our “Ideas Proposed” rubric to ensure project quality & novelty are encompassed in our assessment criteria. |