Contributor identity use cases

A list of different self sovereign identity use cases that are relevant to contributor funding

Contributor funding will create a number of opportunities for identity related use cases. These use cases represent a bottom up approach that could increase the rate of adoption for self sovereign identity solutions.

Contributor selection credential

Contributors that get selected to receive funding and work within an ecosystem by the foundation or community could receive a credential to prove that they were selected to work as a contributor for a certain term length. This credential could then be used to sign messages, votes and reviews that cover a number of different use cases. This verifiable credential could be used for many of the other use cases mentioned below.

Contributor profiles

Contributors could create their own professional profile with their personal and professional information with any social links and relevant information about their historical contributions. This profile could then be used in contributor funding processes across many ecosystems where the profile could be submitted and then considered by the voters.

Contribution logs

Contributors could submit evidence of their recent contribution efforts in the form of a contribution log. These logs could be attached to the contributors profile and provide a growing amount of evidence about the contributions that each contributor has made over a specific time period.

Contributor skills & education credentials

Contributors could benefit from being able to attach any credentials that showcase their skills and educational background. These credentials could help to increase their reputation and chances of being selected as a funded contributor.

Contributor participation credentials

Contributors could be issued credentials to prove their participation in meetings, discussions and activities. These credentials could be useful for proving their participation and contribution to others and for building up their reputation over time.

Contributor peer review & feedback

Contributors could sign peer reviews and feedback they give to other contributors either during or after a fixed term length of contribution effort. These reviews and feedback could focus on performance, impact or their experiences with working with fellow contributors. Attestations could also be made about any mentorship and support that was provided.

Community review & feedback

Community members might also want to make their own reviews and give feedback to funded contributors. These attestations might comment on their performance and impact or about the support or mentorship they provided to certain community members or the wider community. Attestations could also just help to show gratitude towards certain contributors due to the impact they generated or their professional behaviour and contributions.

Contributor software & tool usage decisions

Contributors could make decisions about what software and tools they are going to use whilst executing different ideas. They also might want to make decisions about what software packages are most suitable to be integrated into any software they are developing.

Contributor scheduling & working hours decisions

Contributors could make decisions on their own or within groups about their working schedule and working hours to make decisions about when it might be most beneficial for them to work at similar times as a group.

Contributor scheduling & working hours discussions

Contributors could discuss their working hours and schedules for meeting by sharing their opinions and preferences through signed messages.

Contributor process parameter discussions

Contributors could sign messages with their opinions on different parameters that impact how contributors operate. Community members could then take these opinions into account when voting on any changes to those parameters that need to be handled by a wider community vote.

Contributor process parameter decisions

Contributors could make decisions about certain parameter changes that impact how they work and operate as individual contributors and as a group.

Contribution time allocation decisions

Contributors could indicate where they would prefer to spend their time or even vote on how their time is allocated. This could be useful in situations where multiple people wanted to work on a similar promising idea and a solution is needed regarding how contributors time gets allocated across different ideas.

Idea execution read & write access control

Contributor credentials could be used as an access control system that determines which contributors have access to writing new entries or changes to different repositories. This could enable contributors to change documentation, research, designs or code based on the validity of a verifiable credential.

Idea execution estimations

Contributors could sign their own estimations on how long they believe a certain piece of work might take when planning out the execution of ideas.

Idea discussions & feedback

Contributors could sign messages that discuss and provide feedback to ideas that have been suggested by community members.

Idea selection decisions

Contributors could vote on a list of suggested ideas with their opinion on which ideas look like the most promising ones to execute at that point in time.

Idea completion sign off & review

Contributors could sign off completed work and indicate that it is fully completed. Contributors could also verify other peoples work and sign this off with their own review.

Priority discussions & feedback

Contributors could sign messages that discuss and provide feedback to the priorities that have been suggested by community members.

Priority selection decisions

Contributors could vote on a list of suggested priorities with their opinion on which ones they believe are currently the highest priority.

Last updated