@utopian-io As you know, open source projects usually have an owner (a person or organization). The owner owns the code repository and determines which community contributions go in and which do not. The owner has spent a lot of time thinking about the project and gathering qualitative feedback from the users, as well as quantitative feedback on how the product is being used. So, the owner usually has the best familiarity with the project and its needs, the current problems it faces and what approaches to solving them would work well.

So, would it not make most sense to come up with a model where each project owner checks community contributions to their project, accepts/rejects/modifies them and upvotes them? The owner would be in the best position to determine how much value a given contribution brings to the project, and upvote it accordingly.

Projects could be registered on utopian.io the same way they are registered on github. And the creator of each project would be its owner. But how would the owner get Steem Power in order to upvote contributions? To get Steem Power, the owner would be incentivized to reach out to the users of the product and get them to regularly upvote the owner's contributions to the product's development. Each new update to the product, documentation, tutorial, news post, etc. could be upvoted by the product's userbase.

This is my understanding of the Steem model.

As a start, to kick things off, all the SP delegations to utopian.io could be distributed by the Utopian team to projects that get registered on Utopian. Delegate portions of SP to the owners of projects you consider worthwhile. And then those project owners will take care of curating contributions to their own projects. If there is abuse, remove the delegation to the abusive project.

What do you think?