In general, I support the idea of a more differentiated view on emissions and the emissions Cap. As I mentioned during the meeting, in order to get a better grasp of what would be a good Cap, we should calculate some examples based on our actual numbers. If I remember correctly @BloodBath1 was so nice and offered to do that and I’m curious to see how this develops.
I’d also like to add that we should keep in mind that a fixed amount of emissions per Skill Role implies that everyone with this Skill Role does the same amount of work. People with two or even three Skill Roles of course can do the work of two or three others with just one Skill Role but I’d guess that this isn’t the case.
So if we keep the assumption that all members with a given Skill Role get an equal amount of emissions due to similar merit, maybe we need to consider an additional modifier for the emissions of the second/third Skill Role. The Skill Role with the highest emission would be considered as their first role.
A moderate reduction could be:
1st Skill Role = 100% (of emissions)
2st Skill Role = 75%
3st Skill Role = 50%
With a more aggressive reduction, this could also be a more simplified version used for Cap-removal. Maybe you could check this too @BloodBath1
Example:
- Skill Role A = 10,000
- Skill Role B = 20,000
- Skill Role C = 15,000
2nd Skill Role = -60%
3rd Skill Role = -80%Member with Skill Roles A and B = 20,000 + 10,000 x 0.4 = 24,000
Member with Skill Roles A and C = 15,000 + 10,000 x 0.4 = 19,000
Member with Skill Roles A, B and C = 20,000 + 15,000 x 0.4 + 10,000 x 0.2 = 28,000
