Add first batch of CredCon and Partner initiatives

[Beanow]

Depends on #26

This is a first iteration

Edit: rather than letting this stall for too long, let's improve on this with follow ups.
Have a look at #29 for info on how to go from here.

This is a preview a first iteration, as it's in need of another weighting round.
Still missing from this, but identified at the team call:

• CredCon: video interviews (need a user account for zak)
• CredCon: CredRank prototype (have not decided fibonacci weight)
• CredCon: Discord prototype (have not decided fibonacci weight)
• Evan's explainer (have not decided fibonacci weight)

Also great improvements to make from here:

• Adding contributions and linking that to contributors (see CredCon contributions missing #30)

Good but not as critical:

• Making the timestamps more accurate

Assumptions to validate

Fibonacci to absolute weights: 200x

Edit: see #27 (comment) we'll start out with 100x for this PR, then move to 200x when we're more confident about having solid coverage of connected contributions.

The major point to debate is the weights we should set. In the team call
we've decided on fibonacci scale weights, which I've included in these
files as _fibonacciWeight.

This PR includes a ballpark suggestion of a multiplier to use.
The intention is to "inflate cred" by weighing initiatives more heavily
than plugin-imported contributions so far. While keeping in mind that
more initiatives will follow and inflate cred further. And adding more
contribution edges will "dilute" the share currently flowing to champions.

A multiplier which I think is in this ballpark is: 200x
(e.g. a fibonacci weight of 2 = a node weight of 400)

Dependency structure

For the activities as part of CredCon (like hackathon, party, talks), I
found they had very similar dependencies on logistical initiatives and
CredCon itself. I've generalized this by depending on CredCon, rather than
directly depending on logistics.

Example: CredCon party, depends on CredCon, depends on car+food+lodging

This will make the life of historians easier too, as adding more logicstics
(maybe invites or scheduling) would only need to be set as a CredCon
dependency, rather than for all activities as well.

Example references / contributions

For the main CredCon initiative, I've added several clearly related forum
topics. These are both as an example, and to make sure this part of the
graph is not exclusively connected through identities.

Completion status

Other than both Partner initiatives, the CredCon initiatives are set as
completed.

Technical aspects to validate

The main point which needs careful manual validation, is to inspect the
graph. For example using the "legacy explorer" to confirm the initiative
nodes are added and have edges to all the URLs added.

That means:

• Champions: Identities / GitHub users / Discourse users.
• References / Contributions: Forum topics (in CredCon).
• Dependencies between Initiatives.

Note: it's expected for links to an initiative to give a 404 not found,
until the PR is merged to master. However they should be listed in the
explorer.

[Beanow]

Explorer previews

• @sourcered-before - This is the baseline for comparison.
• @sourcered - Adds the initiatives to the baseline.

Score comparisons

For lack of a good compare feature, here is a summary of the resulting score differences >1 cred.
(Tip: try renaming the initiatives parameter in the project file to _initiatives to easily disable it).

Reminder: please be mindful not to add possibly hurtful comments, such as by comparing people to each other! These scores are included to check, whether Cred is flowing from initiatives to contributors in a way that seems reasonable.

Contributor	Before	After	Change
discourse/LB	996	3234	2238.2
identity/decentralion	29971	32174	2202.6
identity/hammadj	62	1459	1397
identity/s_ben	3264	4429	1164.6
discourse/flyingzumwalt	100	589	488.9
identity/wchargin	22137	22427	290
identity/Beanow	10235	10429	194.1
identity/BrianLitwin	1603	1689	86
identity/vsoch	4243	4329	85.6
discourse/burrrata	3507	3586	78.9
discourse/1GLENCo	33	76	42.9
identity/amico	162	202	39.6
identity/mzargham	1010	1035	25
discourse/kronosapiens	90	113	22.1
discourse/themathematicianisin	22	29	7.6
discourse/Jessie	123	130	7.3
discourse/nothingismagick	80	87	6.3
discourse/protocol	316	320	4.5
discourse/dillchen	53	57	4.3
discourse/jwaup	46	50	4
identity/ericronne	257	260	3.1
discourse/jessicaschilling	77	79	1.7
discourse/insideNIMA	18	20	1.5
discourse/cslarson	37	39	1.4
github/wudolan	21	18	-2.1
identity/miyazono	504	473	-30.5

---

Some things which stand out to me.

• We're clearly missing Cred for people who contributed to CredCon but aren't listed as Champions.
• There are (expected) "knock-on" effects because Cred flows from the Champions onto other contributions, for example from likes.
• Substantial Cred flow differences comparing Maker and MetaGame partnerships. In spite of equal weights being set, the reason seems to be how many out-edges the champions have, as removing the dependency on CredCon for MetaGame (which Maker doesn't have) only further increased the differences.
• I'm confused by the -30.5 for miyazono. Of course by adding the "Evan's explainer" initiative this would become a big positive. However it's curious to see that adding to the graph and minting Cred, as much as 30 Cred managed to flow elsewhere.

[teamdandelion]

We should be setting the weight in the initiative as the fibonacci weight. Then, we can set a type-level weight (a prefix weight) of 200 on the whole initiative plugin. This way we can tune and rebalance the overall weight of the initiatives without needing to individually modify every initiative.

[Beanow]

We should be setting the weight in the initiative as the fibonacci weight. Then, we can set a type-level weight (a prefix weight) of 200 on the whole initiative plugin. This way we can tune and rebalance the overall weight of the initiatives without needing to individually modify every initiative.

I think it's better to use the absolute weights and lean towards 1x multiplier on the type level.
200x works because the initiatives listed here are fairly large ones. For smaller initiatives and contributions you might want to have 10, 50, 100, available as well.

[Beanow]

Based on a discussion we had and https://discourse.sourcecred.io/t/rolling-out-initiatives/698 for context, the proposal is to start out with 100x for this PR. Because we know there will be updates and improvements needed to complete it. Then increase this to 200x later as we're more confident we've got good coverage.

As these following updates may cause overshooting, followed by dilution to happen for champions. Because more of the Initiatives Cred would flow to contributors who are currently not added yet.

Which is not very enjoyable to see I think. So it's better to do another increase of weights at the end and make it look more like this:

[Beanow]

Based on the rationale explained in the last comment, added the commit which sets it to 100x.

[teamdandelion]

Looks good as a start! I'll note that @protocol's funding support is missing here, and will want to add that in. But we already know we need a system for allowing inlined contributions. Let's go with this for now!

Please update the title and description prior to merging.

[Beanow]

Updated the opening comment of this PR for clarity to mention later conclusions. Have kept it mostly faithful to the original comment though, to keep as reference what these question were.
You can view the changes through here

[Beanow]

In the merged commit: 3452820

I've slightly reworded and distilled the conclusions of the discussion in this PR, rather than have the commit message be full of open questions.