DAO Ops proposal

[kempsterrrr]

@Erik_Knobl

@kempsterrrr

A large part of the DAO Governance Structure Upgrade was to simplify and clarify structures and roles.

This is an effort to elaborate in that effort.

@kempsterrrr

Have you thought about the complexity this new terminology is adding back into the DAO? If so, what are your reasonings for adding more role terminology back into the mix vs not?

We can use “revenue-generating contributors” and “non-revenue-generating contributors”. I just think it’s shorter.

OK. This feels like it adds complexity that we’ve just removed from our processes and makes Governance bigger again which feels like a mistake.

@Erik_Knobl

@kempsterrrr

How are these Operator roles selected?

That task has been delegated to coordinators of each area.

Who chooses the Coordinators?

@Erik_Knobl

@kempsterrrr

Love the idea of setting the threshold and putting that decision to the Stewards. Is this on top of the 5% for non-revenue generating roles, and is that per Sub-DAO?

Yes, on top of that. And for each sub-DAO. Right now there is no clarity if other sub-DAOs can request USD, why, and how much. We need that.

Totally. That power was given to Stewards in DAO Governance Structure Upgrade, see below. Does this replace that or just doing that work for now?

@kempsterrrr

Define DAO-level Treasury Strategy (any DAO Operational / Foundation costs, Treasury assets available for budget requests).

@Erik_Knobl

@kempsterrrr

Thoughts behind this $1 rate for $CODE? Do you see it being expanded across the DAO for other activities?

I just think it’s simpler because the real reward is USD. If required, I can add the hourly calculations.

tbh I like it as an experiment. Quick and easy.

I wonder if there is a reduce scale for paid roles though i.e. if you’re paid by the DAO your $CODE rewards are 50% of what they otherwise would be based on OKRs?

@Erik_Knobl

@kempsterrrr

Why are most roles documented with what seems like hours and the coordinator’s roles on %? If we update the revised figures I’ve shared above, that will leave the ops work at $2,200, which is not sustainable for the level of work. This means ops would coordinating AR/AP/Contracts/Payments etc. for less money than the folks they are coordinating doing work that takes less time

There are two steps in this process. First we have to know which roles we are rewarding, and how much each area needs. These initial numbers are an effort to have consensus, and learn how much Community, Operations, and Partnerships need?
Then, we balance and negotiate those numbers. If we start saying currently a role will be paid with $100 monthly from a 50,000 seasonal budget, we know it’s 0.2 of the total budget. If the available budget is reduced, we adapt that reward to that percent, just like coordinators.
If we have more money, all payments remain the same. If we have less money available, all payments will be reduced.

Open to discuss ways to improve the payment/percent, in a way that creates a system for all. It’s still a work in progress. Currently, Operations is ranked in the same level as other coordinations (community and devrel), and compensated as such. My initial suggestion for you would be to have a basic role, and also take on other (defined) tasks, which all together will be a sustainable payment. But if you feel we should create a unique role, with a single payment superior than the rest of the roles, we can discuss it too.

I think the way this is defined is the problem, it is creating far more work for Ops, not less. Handling payments/contracts etc., across all of these different people isn’t a small task. It’s far bigger than Season 1. With current definition, Ops needs to handle contracts and payments for 65 Contirbutors a Season. To put that into perspective that’s:

• Up to 65 Contributor agreements (probably not all at the same time as its fluid); info gathered, questions answered, contracts sent, chased, signed etc.
• Up to 65 invoices per month; chasing people, checking everything carefully etc.
• Making sure we make up to 65 on-chain payments correctly every month

That is ~ > 10x last season and doesn’t include Accounts receivable invoices, contracts for partners etc.

I’m not sure what the right solution would be under this potential model, I will have to think about a suggestion (any advice on what might be useful info), but that is not sustainable.