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

[Piablo]

I know it’s a safe space for me, when I’m not being ignored. That’s what a safe space is. And I called out every name on the proposal. So please don’t suggest I discriminated against anyone.

Scrutiny should be applauded here - that’s what the forum is for. And now I feel like I’m being censored.

[Erik_Knobl]

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.

[luan]

@Piablo

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.

As I’m still a listed Budget Steward for a few more days, I’m 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) — and the switchover to the new roles and permissions in Developer DAO’s 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 — I also tried to ensure that ‘value’ included things such conducting research, brainstorming sessions, meetings etc. All of these tasks constituted value, as I defined it.

I’ve been extremely vocal about people being paid for the value that they contribute, and I’ve 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 don’t appreciate the language you’ve used here (particularly in that last line) — because I don’t 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 I’ve 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 — 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 they’re even available.

What I did for Developer DAO:

• Single-handedly in Season 1, alone

• Not to mention, this past off-season

• The whole of Season 0

• And even the work I’ve 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 I’ve 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 Women’s first budget proposal. The work that they’re 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 — especially since there are far greater financial concerns and discrepancies happening in Developer DAO. As far as I’m 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 I’ve left above (as I’m 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

[wolovim]

addressing a couple points more directly:

• i spoke with @meowy today. yes, some of the language in the proposal makes it sound like they might’ve 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 you’re 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.
• we’ve always known this process would be experimental and iterative. there are valuable lessons we’re 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. i’ve 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 i’d 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 – 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.