S2 D_D Women Budget Proposal: Diversity, Inclusiveness & Social Space

I appreciate fully the value of this work. In fact I find it invaluable. And I also know what it’s like to do work, where it’s a real challenge to document the hours that I’ve worked, so you have my empathy from that perspective.

But here comes some scrutiny. And I’ll probably make myself even more unpopular than I already am for saying this, but I believe in principle over popularity. After all, that’s how activism begins its journey, until it goals can become a reality. And my scrutiny is meant as a protection to the mission of this initiative, as opposed to a hindrance to it.

I’m quite puzzled as to this rationale of this statement. Is this suggesting that 15 $CODE per hour doesn’t apply to this initiative? I’m confused as to what our approach means. Who else’s approach is this comparing to? I’d really appreciate some clarity on this.
Thanks
:seedling:

8 stewards have commented on this. I will elevate it to snapshot.
Any final comments in the next 30 minutes, let me know, please.

1 Like

excited to see the ongoing Community Manager election include two DDW core members!

i know we’re close to the finish line here, but i’d like to formalize my earlier suggestion to include a CM within the DDW budget and give that a try for S2. Specifically my suggestion is to:

  • add $1k/mo USDC for a DDW Community Manager. could be a similar job description as the other three, but up to you.
  • i imagine the DDW Community Manager as a peer of the other three, but naturally would focus primarily on DDW.
  • the DDW core team can decide how to assign the role (including splitting it up or rotating the role).

I actually have a different suggestion for this.

I planned to stay away from the Community Manager part.

So in that way, I can focus on being ddw Community manager and while having 3 Community manager for the DAO.

In that way, we can have more hands on the community handling without just three.

One person for ddw community (which I will be doing myself) + 3 community managers (which is from the elected community managers)

What do you think?

i think we’re 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 you’ve got in mind already and i’d 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, i’ll use my vote weight for other candidates in the election – nothing personal :wink: .

That sounds good to me.

Then we will change the budget and make the changes as you are suggesting.

thanks for the suggestion.

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.

i’d like this to be the FINAL request. we’ve been sitting on this for weeks. thanks

Am I correct with my calculations here? @meowy for 9600 $CODE throughout the season, you’ll be required to do 40 hours a week of work under the DDW initiative?

I was in the middle of updating it.
It’s updated now.

1 Like

It’s updated. We can move it to snapshot.

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.

@luan @Erik_Knobl @Narb @allWiseee @ntindle @Wikist

1 Like

In my existing Budget Steward capacities, I’m 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 ‘GOVERN’ have to do with creating a scholarship fund? It reads like a forced way to mirror an ‘idea’ 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 don’t 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 I’ve just read, looks it’s being required to stack a bunch of objectives and key results. That isn’t 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. I’m simply sharing my thoughts, and getting them on record. I’ve 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. We’re already on the cusp of March, so ideally it can move to Snapshot today. Nothing further from my end.

i appreciate this but i’d like to move forward ASAP. we will not amend the proposal anymore.

Fully respect that. As stated, I’m simply getting my thoughts on record (with the necessary context) - it’s not a request to make changes. Thus I’m happy for this proposal to move to Snapshot, as soon as possible.

I hope it doesnt take longer than it already has been. I’m 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.

Author(s) : @meowy @krystal

Supporting Budget Steward(s) : @luan @Erik_Knobl @Narb @allWiseee @ntindle @Wikist @wolovim

Why was this question not answered before everything got rushed to snapshot? It’s been here for five days. I couldn’t 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.

I wonder what these 336 devs would have to say if they knew their democracy didn’t count and that their choice got upended and embedded in a different proposal:
https://snapshot.org/#/devdao.eth/proposal/0x2ed77b418586a172dbd533f584ac17cd351a5d6ed46780c53e5c9a1de7027171

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I’ve been ill the past couple of days but I too share Piablo’s concern.

Where was this pulled from?

I think we should rethink the way we calculate approvals to move to snapshot. I don’t have a solution at the moment, but will think on it.

While your concerns may be valid, I don’t 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 that’s 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 it’s approach, I think it embodied compassion and empathy with humanness. Since I posted it, it’s 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 don’t think it’s 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, I’d 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 it’s 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.