i think weāre on the same page. my suggestion is to add a $1k/mo USDC budget for a dedicated DDW CM in addition to the three roles that are up for election now.
in my limited understanding, it sounds like the responsibilities youāve got in mind already and iād be supportive of that allocation going in your direction. i think an ideal outcome is no one is a CM for both DDW and the broader dao at the same time, so if you take on the DDW role, iāll use my vote weight for other candidates in the election ā nothing personal .
i would really like this wrapped up ASAP as we are already going to be in March. @meowy please update this ASAP so @Erik_Knobl can send this to snapshot.
iād like this to be the FINAL request. weāve been sitting on this for weeks. thanks
Am I correct with my calculations here? @meowy for 9600 $CODE throughout the season, youāll be required to do 40 hours a week of work under the DDW initiative?
courtesy ping to all listed supporting stewards that this proposal has had a substantial update ($1k/mo for a Community Manager) with my encouragement. reply link points to primary context.
In my existing Budget Steward capacities, Iām fine with the $1k/month for the DDW CM role.
_
Thoughts
Some of those other amendments to the structure of the proposal, look unnecessary and illogical. For example: what does āGOVERNā have to do with creating a scholarship fund? It reads like a forced way to mirror an āideaā which originates in the Discord server, and is being arbitrarily applied here.
But my main concern is that the DevDao Women core team (and subsequently that entire effort/space) do not get mired down in processes and structures that make no sense, and shortchange their long-term potential. I think some of these amendments are nonsense, and holds the team to an arbitrary set of standards that donāt necessarily set them up for long-term success. The start of this very-rushed Season 2 has been a bit of a shit show in some ways. I do not want the DDW effort to experience the repercussions of any shortcomings among DAO leadership.
This Objective + Key Results format looks like a rebranded version of the KPI structure that @vorcigernix and I spoke at length about, and explained why it needed to be abolished.
DDW is at a juncture where it needs to be nurtured and invested into, in order to organically (and safely) grow. And some of what Iāve just read, looks itās being required to stack a bunch of objectives and key results. That isnāt the way I envisioned this effort being supported, which is why I worked closely with @meowy and @krystal on the original S2 proposal that was put out. A lot of the context that went into that initial draft, was reflective of availability, current DAO engagement levels, and future prospects and intentions.
Disclaimer
This is not to hold up the proposal, however. Iām simply sharing my thoughts, and getting them on record. Iāve spoken with members of the core team directly a short while ago, and they are happy for this Season 2 proposal to move forward. I respect their judgement, and so I support this proposal moving to Snapshot as soon as the process allows for it to do so. Weāre already on the cusp of March, so ideally it can move to Snapshot today. Nothing further from my end.
Fully respect that. As stated, Iām simply getting my thoughts on record (with the necessary context) - itās not a request to make changes. Thus Iām happy for this proposal to move to Snapshot, as soon as possible.
I hope it doesnt take longer than it already has been. Iām more than happy to change it back how it was before while excluding the community manager $1000 USD if that is the hold up.
Ddw team will work for the community either way.
But we are truly facing a wall while we wait longer because we want to pay our contributors and get things moving for the team and the community.
Why was this question not answered before everything got rushed to snapshot? Itās been here for five days. I couldnāt have put the question more kindly? Is this your idea of democracy? Is this your idea of inclusivity - where all voices in the community matter? Or is only those who are deemed to be worthy of inclusion by an exclusive group? Is this the your idea of community, where you discriminate against others by ignoring them? Roll on happy world.
While your concerns may be valid, I donāt think the tone is correct for this forum. I must ask you to please take some time to pause, and reframe your questioning.
The proposal has all the requirements for snapshot, and thatās why it was elevated. The process may be flawed, yes, and I will be happy to listen to any ideas on how to improve it.
If you have any complaints, please address them to me, since I was the one elevating it to snapshot, as part of my duties as steward.
The incorrect tone of the forum is being ignored and I find that shameful.
My post was very kind in nature and itās approach, I think it embodied compassion and empathy with humanness. Since I posted it, itās been passed by and ignored by the two authors and several stewards. These are the folks who I am entrusting for the governance, scrutiny, community and well-being of the DAO. And in the name of inclusivity I donāt think itās unreasonable of me to be a bit saddened and angry for being ignored. A bit of empathy goes a long way.
But like I said in the original post, Iād prefer to stand up for principle than popularity, no matter how that may force me to the fringes of a community.
There may be many reasons for that. The easiest is that itās easy to miss comments in the Forum, specially in a crowded thread like this.
Whatever the reason, I strongly think your comments were rude to a team trying to create safe spaces for others in the DAO. Humanity must be in all comments, not just the initial one.
I know itās a safe space for me, when Iām not being ignored. Thatās what a safe space is. And I called out every name on the proposal. So please donāt suggest I discriminated against anyone.
Scrutiny should be applauded here - thatās what the forum is for. And now I feel like Iām being censored.
I will respond to any questions you may have on the process, and will work full time to include any ideas, suggestions and feedback you may have on how to improve it. However, I will also point every time I feel someone lashes out in a hurtful way to another member of the DAO.
There are ways to have a conversation. Throwing shame to others is not one.
As Iām still a listed Budget Steward for a few more days, Iām going to speak to this.
Preface (and to offer context)
I stepped down from my former roles as Lead on Community, Onboarding, and Server Architecture on 9th February 2023. My involvement in Developer DAO since then, has largely revolved around assisting with the DevDao Women Season 2 budget proposal, and overseeing the badge rollout (link) ā and the switchover to the new roles and permissions in Developer DAOās Discord server.
Re: your initial question
15 $CODE per-hour is extremely rigid. It is peanuts when converted to fiat, and it does not adequately reflect the value being contributed, relative to the tasks outlined in this proposal. I spoke out against this before Season 1 began. And as a result, whilst I still did adhere to it on the 4 teams that I led during Season 1 ā I also tried to ensure that āvalueā included things such conducting research, brainstorming sessions, meetings etc. All of these tasks constituted value, as I defined it.
Iāve been extremely vocal about people being paid for the value that they contribute, and Iāve been the most vocal DAO member on this issue. I highlighted some of this in the original Eden Protocol S1 budget proposal (see: link), hence why they subsequently made an amendment to their proposal.
I personally believe that Team Leads across the DAO should be trusted to make these judgement calls on how they ascribe value to the work being done. Most especially because this particular team has been doing this work UNPAID for well over 6 months. @meowy, most especially. What matters, is that the team are able to give an accounting of funds used.
You are 100% within your rights as a DAO member to query anything in a proposal, and I support that right being exercised. However, I donāt appreciate the language youāve used here (particularly in that last line) ā because I donāt feel it is commensurate with what has actually occurred.
I can appreciate the frustrations on your end, with your initial question not being answered ahead of the proposal being elevated to Snapshot. I would feel just as frustrated, had my own enquiry gone unanswered. But I hope that Iāve been able to adequately clarify things in my response, above.
Do let me know if you have additional questions for me.
Final point (and additional context)
I think the selective scrutiny occurring in Developer DAO is what is concerning. Not this Season 2 proposal. Remember that the founding team all got ~100,000 $CODE tokens each. This is what we voted into existence ā in a DAO that has had massively convoluted processes, and woeful communication; whilst continuing to move fast on certain things (despite repeated objections from people such as myself).
The breakdown is:
50,000 tokens were immediately made available when the $CODE token launched back on 22nd August 2022, and then the remaining 50,000 tokens are being paid out monthly over a 2yr period. Irrespective of how much (or how little) work is done. And regardless of whether or not theyāre even available.
What I did for Developer DAO:
ā¢ Single-handedly in Season 1, alone
ā¢ Not to mention, this past off-season
ā¢ The whole of Season 0
ā¢ And even the work Iāve continued doing, despite having stepped down nearly 3 weeks ago
None of my $CODE rewards have accurately reflected the value of these contributions. Not by a long shot. A big part of that, is because Iāve had to adhere to the 15 $CODE per-hour framework.
A small few in Developer DAO have profited majorly off the efforts of other people. I (personally) do not wish for that to continue with the DevDao Womenās first budget proposal. The work that theyāre doing and the space that they are fostering, is a net positive for Developer DAO. They need to adequately realize that value, themselves.
I was the only person made to account for my budget proposal in the Coordination Call, earlier this month. I was the only one required (at least at the time) to give a line-by-line accounting. This should have been a requirement for the likes of @kempsterrrr and all the others who have been taking thousands of $USD each month, from Developer DAO, since last year.
Getting onto the DevDao Women core team on this particular point, feels misplaced and disingenuous ā especially since there are far greater financial concerns and discrepancies happening in Developer DAO. As far as Iām aware, this proposal met the requirements to be elevated to Snapshot. As mentioned, I worked with both @meowy and @krystal on the initial draft. And we used one of my Season 1 budget proposals as a template, to ensure some cohesiveness with the rest of the DAO. It has since been subject to questions and amendments, based on the feedback provided.
The assertion that something untoward has somehow occurred with this proposal, feels unfair; and is not an accurate reflection of reality.
_
I did not wish to leave comments beyond the ones Iāve left above (as Iām no longer involved in the DAO outside of a few key areas), but I felt it necessary to reply to your comment. In part, to address the language you used, but also to help provide some clarity on your initial enquiry. I hope the above makes sense
i spoke with @meowy today. yes, some of the language in the proposal makes it sound like they mightāve taken the liberty to create another distribution formula, but in the end i think they ended up with the original formula. the ddw team are active as hell and i think the hourly estimates are at least in the right ballpark.
possible other point of confusion: the core team CODE values displayed are for the entire 16-week Season. other budgets have broken this into a monthly figure, so divide these by four if youāre making a comparison.
@Piablo, i apologize that i just missed that you had an unanswered and valid question as i popped in and made my last suggestion during a lunch break. i thought the original question was reasonable. the first couple bullet points were answer enough for me, cc/ @ntindle. frustration is understandable, but your follow-up was far from constructive. stop trying to give any of us credit for being coordinated enough to tear down democracy.
weāve always known this process would be experimental and iterative. there are valuable lessons weāre learning the hard way, which should be taken elsewhere in the forum in the shape of improvement proposals. for example:
more clear elevation steps. i saw @ntindle make a related suggestion. iāve also been stewing on a [LAST CALL] status to indicate a proposal is in the final 24 hours, and substantial changes could restart the 24 hour clock. i stand by the suggestion to add a CM budget addition to this proposal, but iād also agree the late change is not a good general case precedent.
the CODE allocation formula/framework/policy definitely needs revisiting. i believe that should be a high priority for the dao before the next round of budgeting ā in other words, ASAP.
if anyone wants to follow-up on those or suggest other process improvements, please start a new thread. apologies to the DDW team for this thread spiraling.
.