GRIP Renewal

[msa6867]

Fixed. Thank you… [filler]

[zaatar]

Thank you for your comments.

I am preparing a reply to the feedback from MSA and Caesar, and also want to address your concerns. However, I’m not clear on your view about the Pre-Proposal category in the Forum (as opposed to GRIP’s role). Are you saying that pre-proposals posted to this category should not be “supported or opposed” by the community, and that this category should not be the first place a proposal gets debated by the community?

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

Yes. I am saying that there’s no clarity in what is “GRIP work” and what is simply community debate (@shane 's hours, for instance), and that the structure of GRIP time was based on the points I outlined in my previous comment, not in typical community debate. The purpose of that category was the things outlined above, both with GRIP work and with community feedback on viability, feasibility, and to highlight points which may have been missed in the proposal.

I left that original comment in response to @Dermot’s comment:

@Dermot

others may realise that supporting pre-proposals without any pay may become a viable pathway to joining an existing coordinape circle, or simply building up a better reputation in the community more generally

…which is exactly the concern here, that the waters are exceedingly muddy as to what is GRIP work in the preproposal category, what is not, and that debates are occurring in this category before a proposal is actually “ready”, which was the entire purpose of the category to begin with, to get proposals “ready” for debate.

I lobbied strongly in favor of the original proposal, because I expected the GRIP team to be doing the things I previously outlined: assisting with supporting graphics, helping identify technical challenges and feasibility issues, etc. You yourself said many times that changing the proposal mid debate made it challenging for people to understand the current state of the proposal, but now that debates have essentially moved into the preproposal category, we’re seeing the exact same thing. Moving the location of the debate doesn’t solve the core issue, and I don’t see GRIP work clearly being done as most of the comments in the preproposals are full on debate versus clarification or feasibility analysis.

The lack of clarity around what is GRIP and what is not (and to be frank, the amount of time billed for GRIP which is meetings or typo editing versus actual work which streamlines the proposal process) make me question the value being returned. I don’t know what guardrails need to be put in place to resolve this, but I’m finding it difficult to support in its current form.

[shane]

@Jinx

I am saying that there’s no clarity in what is “GRIP work” and what is simply community debate (@shane 's hours, for instance), and that the structure of GRIP time was based on the points I outlined in my previous comment, not in typical community debate.

Well, I’d say there is a point where quality feedback, and in my case, solutioning (like what I did with EVAs) burns folks out if the expectation is to just volunteer non-stop. If GRIP is not the method to incentivize quality feedback and guidance on pre-proposals, then I sure think it would be in the best interest of the DAO to come up with some other plan.

Is the idea that everyone does individual proposals like @Cryptocorn, or is GRIP a standard program to include many? Should GRIP be modified to be wider in scale, to accompany more folks, or should it be more specific?

Just some thoughts to consider.

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

@shane

If GRIP is not the method to incentivize quality feedback and guidance on per-proposals, then I sure think it would be in the best interest of the DAO to come up with some other plan.

I think that WAS the plan, to be clear. I just don’t see any clarity between what is GRIP work in the pre-proposal category, and what is typical proposal debating. If we got to the point where people weren’t debating without being paid to, I’d suggest we have a failure of DAO governance.

[b3n]

I think the community is raising good questions about the purpose and operations of GRIP. I will not add much detail here other than to say these important questions need to be addressed directly by the GRIP team. It seems especially jarring to people to see GRIP is charging time for interactions with them without them having opted in to using GRIPs services, or that GRIP is charging time for what others consider normal participation as a community member. Without true opt-in to GRIP we can’t answer the important question of “Would proposers use their own hard money to access GRIPs services?”. If the answer to this question is no, we should not be using the DAOs funds for the same.

Speaking on behalf of PNF, we are additionally opposed to this updated proposal to continue GRIP in its current form based on two other factors that we want to see addressed.

Impact:

All paid contributions to Pocket must have a primary driver of demonstrating impact. Charging for internal meetings is unfathomable to many. I strongly disagree with the mechanism of time-based accounting for the simple reason that it leads to what we are experiencing here: misaligned incentives between charging time and creating impact. There are some valuable contributions such as the updated docs and supporting material for proposers, but this has taken months and appears to have cost ~$15K. What other impact can the GRIP team point to that will help the community understand how to size and price their support for GRIP to continue in some form?

Open-ended funding:

The PNF team are (currently) opposed to any mechanism which is open ended. At all times the community, via the DAO, should have the ability to assess the impact of contributors’ work and have a reasonable mechanism to request adjustments or end contributions where expectations are not met. Open ended funding provides no such mechanism.

GRIP should amend the current request to no more than 3 months of additional funding, with much clearer monthly accountability mechanisms that report on impact, learnings and the expected reward for accrued work. We would expect to see the GRIP team provide clarity around what work they can and cannot charge the DAO for - eg internal meetings - as well as processes to ensure proposal writers understand when a GRIP member is supporting them, and what work the GRIP team is actually doing, and therefore, charging the DAO for. By implementing some of these measures, DAO voters will be better placed to assess whether the work is meeting the standards of impact and cost/benefit that DAO voters expect.

One reason we are incubating Sockets as described here is to address the challenge of demonstrating impact and providing low friction but accountable funding. As an alternative to funding from the DAO, if GRIP, along with the community, can find a better way of operationalising their service, we would be open to providing GRIP funding through a Socket to better align visible demonstration of impact and ease of funding.

[shane]

@Jinx

I just don’t see any clarity between what is GRIP work in the pre-proposal category, and what is typical proposal debating.

That’s fair. I actually asked in the last GRIP meeting how that should be distinguished as it wasn’t entirely clear to myself.

@Jinx

I think that WAS the plan, to be clear.

My understanding as well.

@b3n

As an alternative to funding from the DAO, if GRIP, along with the community, can find a better way of operationalising their service, we would be open to providing GRIP funding through a Socket to better align visible demonstration of impact and ease of funding.

That is an idea worth flushing out to make things more clear.

[msa6867]

Regarding the SER and 7-Day-Trailing pre-proposals,:

While I did not request GRIP assistance for either of these pre-proposals. the GRIP input that was offered should not be construed as overreach, but rather as due to ambiguity of process, The placement of the drafts into the pre-proposal category could have triggered the assumption that such place was a de facto request for assistance. A simple process improvement should fix this, such as the recommendation I made previously to separate pre-proposal from request for GRIP assistance.

The 2.5 hours and 1 hr, respectively, that @RawthiL logged for GRIP input on these two proposals seem commensurate to the review and input he provided specifically while wearing a GRIP hat, and that this was accounted for separately by him from personal input and debate as a community member, for which he did not log hours.

The irony is that the value rendered to the community by @RawthiL in the course of his regular feedback and debate as a well-informed community member far exceeds the value rendered on proposal-draft improvement as part of GRIP duties. Yet the former receives no compensation while the latter gets compensated at a no-questions-asked $100/hr. This is backwards. I empathize with @shane 's question of where does one draw the line and what is the process of incentivizing and rewarding value-add that occurs during proposal debate (such as brainstorming and dropping an outline of EVA in response to a need highlighted during the proposal discussion).

On the other hand, it is equally problematic if reimbursement is automatically granted to one person but denied to another for equal value of contribution dependent solely on whether that person wears a badge identifying them as a GRIP member.

This is particularly worrisome if GRIP becomes exclusionary and/or starts policing who may or may not be a GRIP member due to personality-based judgments by existing members, as this flies in the face of the amendments @Dermot sought to include, and were included, in the final version of PEP-45.

Regarding billing for meetings etc, I am not sure I have much to add apart from what’s been spoken already. I counted 26 or so direct hours, including the ambiguous where-to-draw-the-line hours for geo-mesh and lean-pocket. So of the 133 hours logged, less than 20% were for direct GRIP contributions of working with authors to get their drafts proposal ready. The other 80% was overhead. I cannot think of any organization that can survive that level of overhead.

Some of the indirect hours were truly value-add in its own right such as template creation, putting together a guide for "wanna-be "authors, etc. It is reasonable for this kind of contribution to be compensated in addition to the direct work with authors. But meetings? Answering emails? Not so much - at least not in terms of “billable hours” though they might form part of the wholistic whole if value-based rather than time-based compensation is considered.

Regarding what I have labeled as “GRIP-creep” where it seems everywhere I look GRIP is pitching to expand its scope, that also needs to stop. It is not good enough that unsolicited offers to expand scope are walked back when they meet resistance. Simply don’t make unsolicited offers in the first place.

So… a lot to work through. Part of growing pains. Doesn’t mean to throw the baby out with the bath water. Tighten up things that need tightening up. Create an action plan to address the concerns raised in this thread. Then fund for a couple more months and review the results to see how effective the tweaks are .

In the meantime discussions around the bigger questions of how to measure value, how to incentivize and reward a larger set of contributors for value creation, etc., etc need to continue. These are not easy questions and can be worked concurrent to letting GRIP run for another couple months to gather more data and results.

[Qspider]

I support this pre-proposal as is without reservation. I think it creates a nice space for those seeking assistance in creating solutions that could benefit the Pocket community. I have no reservations for compensating people to create this space and maintain it.

I think as it evolves over this next phase it will not be as costly as it is ready and most likely won’t take as much time; less meetings. It is limited to a number of members who are already involved in big projects for this community and their experience to participate and maintain it should be compensated/incentivized in my opinion. This was the trial period where everything was built and tested and we’ll continue to evolve as needed with the support/guidance of the community.

[zaatar]

The unanimous vote in favor of PEP-45 showed that the community supported GRIP as the way to incentivize quality feedback and guidance on pre-proposals. But PEP-45 was short on specifics about how GRIP would function. Now that GRIP is set up and somewhat tested, several concerns need addressing:

• What is the best process and venue for GRIP to give expert (technical and economic) feedback (as opposed to other services such as infographics and editing)?
• Should GRIP expert feedback be optional or unsolicited?
• How should GRIP be compensated for its work?

I don’t claim to have all the answers. This reply is intended to prompt discussion. In particular, I’d like to hear from anyone who has submitted and given feedback on proposals and pre-proposals. The results of this discussion will shape the formal proposal for renewal of GRIP. Hopefully, we can achieve agreement on the best way forward for this initiative.

For ease of digestion, I am publishing this reply in two installments.

Part I

1. Purpose of pre-proposals and Pre-Proposal category

• Debate is unavoidable - and helpful

2. Mode of GRIP feedback: Concerns
3. GRIP expert feedback in the Pre-Proposal category: Benefits
4. Paying for unsolicited feedback in the Pre-Proposal category

• Advantages
• Governance concerns
• Fairness concerns

5. Adding new members to GRIP
6. GRIP feedback and other services: By request only
7. Further trial period

• Help only upon request pending renewal vote

Part II (to be published shortly)

8. Payment issues

1. Purpose of pre-proposals and Pre-Proposal category

The purpose of a pre-proposal and, by inference, the Pre-Proposal category in the Forum informs GRIP’s purpose.

Here’s what Jack says in his intro to the Pre-Proposal category:

@JackALaing

Have an idea that’s not yet proposal ready? Or have a proposal and want some feedback before you make it official? Need help fleshing it out and catching flaws? Do you want to see if there’s enough community interest in your idea before you invest time and effort in drafting a formal proposal? That’s what this category is for.

Here’s what MSA thinks:

@msa6867

…a place to gauge the larger community sentiment on concept (eg PIPs), proposed value/value range (e.g., PUPs) or size of reimbursement being requested (e.g., PEPs)…In addition, community sentiment can be gauged for a proposed change or proposed reimbursement by presenting a case for the topic with less formality and rigor than a proposal requires…(my emphasis)

Jinx takes a narrow view:

@Jinx

Pre-proposals are not to be supported or opposed….The idea being that the Preproposal wouldn’t be litigated in the topic, just refined…In reality though, they’ve just become the first place a proposal gets debated.

@Jinx

…debates are occurring in this category before a proposal is actually “ready”, which was the entire purpose of the category to begin with, to get proposals “ready” for debate.

I believe that the distinction that Jinx attempts to draw between pre-proposals and formal proposals is artificial.

Debate Is unavoidable - and helpful

I agree with Jack and MSA that an important use of the Pre-Proposal category is to catch flaws, flesh out ideas and outlines, and see if there’s community support. In this regard, some debate is inevitable. This debate can help shape the proposal that will eventually be put to the community for a vote - as indeed is happening right now with this pre-proposal.

This view is reflected in the Proposal Preparation Guide:

"SOBER SECOND LOOK

 It’s recommended that you post your first draft in the Pre-Proposal category of the Forum for 
 more feedback.

 A wider audience can catch flaws that may escape detection no matter how many times you and 
 your co-authors review your proposal. Further, posting in the Pre-Proposal category allows you to 
 incorporate (additional) feedback into your proposal before you launch it formally.

 Changing your proposal after launch creates confusion. Unless voters follow the Forum proposal 
 thread closely in the run-up to the vote, they may not know what they’re voting on.

 If you post your draft proposal directly to the Forum, you could be blindsided by new criticism. By 
 allowing as much dissent as possible to emerge in the Pre-Proposal category, you’re better able 
 to control the message and persuasively counter any dissent as part of your proposal."

To “refine” a proposal and get it “ready for debate,” debate over the pre-proposal often is unavoidable.

Bottom line: debate in the Pre-Proposal category makes for better proposals and is good for governance.

2. Mode of GRIP feedback: Concerns

GRIP’s expectation was that it would provide its feedback on ideas and outlines posted in the Pre-Proposal category. As MSA observed with his two pre-proposals, simply posting them to the Pre-Proposal category triggered GRIP input. PEP-45 was vague on process because we had to figure it out as we went along. The process that emerged is captured in our explanatory infographic.

Two overlapping concerns have arisen around the mode of GRIP feedback:

@Jinx

I just don’t see any clarity between what is GRIP work in the pre-proposal category, and what is typical proposal debating. If we got to the point where people weren’t debating without being paid to, I’d suggest we have a failure of DAO governance.

@b3n

It seems especially jarring to people to see GRIP is charging time for interactions with them without them having opted in to using GRIPs services, or that GRIP is charging time for what others consider normal participation as a community member.

Translation:

1. GRIP feedback in the Pre-Proposal category resembles typical proposal debating which should not be compensated.

2. GRIP is billing the DAO for feedback that’s unsolicited.

Should GRIPs expert feedback in the Pre-Proposal category, if unsolicited, be compensated? Should GRIP be paid only for feedback when requested? And if so, how and where should this feedback be delivered?

3. GRIP expert feedback in the Pre-Proposal category: Benefits

I see several alternatives: GRIP could provide its feedback unsolicited or only upon request in the Pre-Proposal category, or only upon request in a separate venue; or a combination of the above.

In my view, irrespective of whether it’s uninvited or specifically requested, it makes sense for GRIP to provide feedback on technical and economic pre-proposals in the Pre-Proposal category. (GRIP’s feedback mandate does not extend to other types of proposals.)

1. The rationale for GRIP and the Pre-Proposal category are roughly synonymous: feedback, flesh out ideas, and identify flaws and other problems. The feedback that GRIP experts provide may be indistinguishable from that of other community members.

2. By giving feedback in the Pre-Proposal category, other community members can engage with and learn from GRIP.

If GRIP experts provide their feedback and guidance only in a separate venue (upon request), when would their input be provided? Would they engage with authors only after discussions play out in the Pre-Proposal category? Or would GRIP provide its feedback at the same time? Bifurcating the feedback process is inefficient; discussions in the Pre-Proposal category will be far more fruitful if GRIP experts participate.

4. Paying for unsolicited feedback in the Pre-Proposal category

Advantages

Having GRIP provide expert feedback and guidance unsolicited in the Pre-Proposal category would ensure that someone qualified takes the time to vet pre-proposals. As such feedback is vital, a mechanism is needed to ensure it’s provided.

If we require a request to trigger GRIP’s expert feedback, observes @Crypotcorn, “We run the risk of proposers not thinking they need help, even if they do. That’s part of the point of experts: to oversee, ask questions and guide without being gatekeepers.”

Under this approach, by posting an idea or outline in the Pre-Proposal category, the contributor would be accepting that GRIP technical and economic specialists may provide feedback. Why would contributors oppose feedback from the very individuals that the DAO has recognized as experts and mandated to provide it?

Feedback provision and guidance is to be distinguished from other GRIP services, which would be optional such as infographics, editing and creating lay-friendly versions of complex pre-proposals.

To reduce DAO expense, GRIP could limit its paid participation in the Pre-Proposal category to only what’s needed. In other words, it can wait for other community members to give their feedback and chime in only if necessary. Where there is community input, GRIP may have nothing to add.

Governance Concerns

@Jinx

If we got to the point where people weren’t debating without being paid to, I’d suggest we have a failure of DAO governance.

I disagree. We don’t have a failure of DAO governance. We have a recognition that as a DAO we value people’s time and expertise and believe that where they provide value, they should be compensated. We have a recognition that not paying for feedback creates a risk that pre-proposals will not be properly vetted because the people qualified to do so may not volunteer their time.

As Shane notes:

@shane

Well, I’d say there is a point where quality feedback, and in my case, solutioning (like what I did with EVAs) burns folks out if the expectation is to just volunteer non-stop.

Fairness concerns

MSA comments:

@msa6867

…it is equally problematic if reimbursement is automatically granted to one person but denied to another for equal value of contribution dependent solely on whether that person wears a badge identifying them as a GRIP member.

To resolve this unfairness, as stipulated by PEP-45, anyone who’s qualified can join GRIP and get compensated for taking the time to give expert feedback. Now that GRIP is up and running, it is inviting applications for new members.

5. Adding new members to GRIP

PEP-45 provided as follows:

@zaatar

[N]ew members should be eligible to join once they demonstrate they have sufficient skill/knowledge/expertise and existing members of the group vouch for them. …

If you want to join GRIP, visit the new #join-grip channel on the Get a Grip Discord server. Tell us what value add you can bring to GRIP. Two GRIP members must vouch for you, including one who’s a specialist in the area where you wish to provide feedback. (A GRIP member who wants to be accepted into a different GRIP category must be vouched for by a member of that category.)

New members will be noted in the formal proposal for GRIP renewal.

6. GRIP feedback and other services: By request only

For those who favor GRIP expert feedback only upon request, the best solution might be to have contributors indicate at the outset whether they want GRIP to participate in the community discussion in the Pre-Proposal category. This would allow for the above-noted benefits of GRIP giving feedback in the Pre-Proposal category.

MSA has suggested that GRIP give requested assistance in a separate venue.

This certainly makes sense for copy editing, proofreading, infographics, and creating lay-friendly versions of complex proposals. Generally these services are needed only when the contributor is finalizing a draft proposal.

The author could contact GRIP in the #proposal-support channel on the Pocket Discord server or in the #public-lobby on the Get a GRIP Discord server. Google Docs could be created for formal proposal drafts. (By way of example, after debate played out in the Pre-Proposal category, PoktBlade created a Google Doc of his draft proposal on reimbursement for LeanPocket and Chocolate Rain, and GRIP did the copy-edit.)

GRIP experts could provide requested feedback via the Google Doc too. This help could supplement requested or unsolicited assistance in the Pre-Proposal category.

Mechanics: In the Get a GRIP Discord server, a new category, Draft Proposals, could be created under which a channel could be set up for any contributor requesting help. Its contents would be visible to all but only the contributor and GRIP could post. A link to a Google Doc with a draft formal proposal could be posted in this channel, allowing anyone to view GRIP’s comments.

As an alternative to using the Get a GRIP Discord server - nod to MSA - a “GRIP Help” subcategory be created under Governance in the Forum.

Further Trial Period

GRIP is modifying this pre-proposal from open ended to a further trial period to start from the date that the renewal proposal is approved. This will allow for further evaluation and learnings on the best way for GRIP to operate. PEP-45 provided that GRIP would continue to function pending the vote on renewal.

Help only upon request pending renewal vote

Effective immediately and pending the vote, GRIP will provide assistance only if requested. This help can be provided in the Pre-Proposal category or via a Google Doc as noted above.

Part II of this reply, to be published shortly, will address payment issues.

FOOTNOTE:

@msa6867

The irony is that the value rendered to the community by @RawthiL in the course of his regular feedback and debate as a well-informed community member far exceeds the value rendered on proposal-draft improvement as part of GRIP duties. Yet the former receives no compensation while the latter gets compensated at a no-questions-asked $100/hr. This is backwards.

Some of @RawthiL’s regular feedback is compensated as part of his PoktScan job.

If MSA is referring to feedback that @RawthiL provides elsewhere in the Forum on his own time, I agree this is a concern. It’s a concern that attaches also to the feedback of others. A way of rewarding valuable feedback outside the Pre-Proposal category could be created.

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

Part of the reason I left the GRIP group despite being one of the original core participants in that discussion was the sense of scope creep I saw coming out of the conversations, and that concern feels more and more justified here. I appreciate some of the edits you’ve made along the way, and perhaps we get to a place where my concerns are misplaced. I’m not there yet though.

@zaatar

I believe that the distinction that Jinx attempts to draw between pre-proposals and formal proposals is artificial and untenable.

You certainly didn’t voice that concern when I specifically outlined the pre-proposal category as a place NOT for supporting or lobbying, as a rebuttal to @Dermot 's concerns on the original post quoted above.

@Dermot

My concerns about the private nature of this group mainly relate to the concern that new community members may view this group as the only relevant people to seek counsel from when many others could help. So this shouldn’t be the only channel used to bolster support for a proposal or to seek feedback. The more that others can help each other in this community, the better IMO.

@zaatar

Under this approach, by posting an idea or outline in the Pre-Proposal category, the contributor would be accepting that GRIP technical and economic specialists may provide feedback. Why would contributors oppose feedback from the very individuals that the DAO has recognized as experts and mandated to provide it?

The DAO did not mandate that GRIP review all proposals. The DAO voted in support of a team that would lend assistance to help make new proposals better, on request.

So, if I don’t want to have GRIP review (something which is explicitly not required, your question why notwithstanding), I have to post straight to the governance category in question, which bypasses the purpose of the pre-proposal category as defined above.

EDIT: I see that the following update was made since I began this comment:

@zaatar

Help only upon request pending renewal vote

Effective immediately and pending the vote, GRIP will provide assistance only if requested. This help can be provided in the Pre-Proposal category or via a Google Doc as noted above.

I believe that’s a good start.

@zaatar

I disagree. We don’t have a failure of DAO governance. We have a recognition that as a DAO we value people’s time and expertise and believe that where they provide value, they should be compensated. We have a recognition that not paying for feedback creates a risk that pre-proposals will not be properly vetted because the people qualified to do so may not volunteer their time.

This is quite a change from:

@zaatar

Finally, as I note in this proposal: “If people care about Pocket Network and have a stake in its future, they will continue to weigh in on how best to grow the project and spend the treasury’s funds.”

And which people? Am I qualified to provide feedback? Should I be compensated for all of my pre-proposal posts? Why are there two classes of pre-proposal participants? At this point I really feel like I owe Dermot, @JackALaing , and @b3n an apology, because the concerns they outlined are coming to fruition. I believe (as they do) that “properly vetting” is something that can be done by the community at large, and my support for the proposal (as part of the unanimous support) was based on the original concepts we discussed, not GRIP as a gatekeeper. This team is supposed to be a resource, not a de facto review panel.

@zaatar

To avoid GRIP-team bloat, the number of acting team members could be limited to, or near, its current size. To ensure that it’s not a “privileged” group, active membership/participation could be rotated every three months among all interested members on the roster.

Are you seeking to rotate the GRIP team with this next stage proposal?

[zaatar]

What’s your view on having GRIP experts provide their opt-in (specifically requested) feedback in the Pre-Proposal category?

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

I think that’s what we expected from the beginning. No issues there. It’s only an issue when the default expectation is that posting there triggers a request for GRIP services by default.

[zaatar]

@Jinx

Are you seeking to rotate the GRIP team with this next stage proposal?

What are your thoughts on this?

Initially, it might be best to let this play out organically, IE, when help is sought, the experts can decide amongst themselves who will provide the requested input. A given pre-proposal could be more in line with one person’s expertise than another’s, or two experts might each have something useful to say. Or the experts could put in place a rotational scheme (without being compelled to). It could be made more structured later if needed.

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

I guess there are a number of options to consider, and I’m open to arguments about that. Was just curious if in the last three months, there was any movement on building the roster, and if a rotation was in order. I suspect there would be some challenges in building a large roster and having them debate behind the scenes on who is taking what, versus set terms or the like.

[zaatar]

What do you think about the propriety of a contributor saying I want GRIP help, but only from Mr. X?

[Jinx (Chris Jenkins)]

It might be more appropriate to say “I want a tech feasibility review” or the like.

[zaatar]

Some of the criticism of GRIP has been fueled by reading into PEP-45 something that’s not there. For example, some understood that GRIP experts would provide feedback in the Pre-Proposal category only upon request.

Read PEP-45. That’s not what it said.

@zaatar

Once a proposal has received community feedback in the soon-to-be-created Pre-Proposal Forum category, if needed, the specialists would do a final review.

@zaatar

Complex technical and economic proposals may be flawed due to errors and lack of research. While most errors may be detected through pre-proposal community evaluation, GRIP, where appropriate, will do a final vetting. It’s better to catch failings and have would-be contributors address them before putting proposals up for time-consuming debate and voting.

@zaatar

After community feedback in the Pre-Proposal category has been taken into account, GRIP would perform adjustments for clarity, add detail where necessary, and make proposals digestible for a general audience.

@zaatar

Language errors: Once the specialists have added their final touches and a proposal is ready for posting, the editor, unless otherwise requested by the proposer, will fix typos and grammar and spelling mistakes.

Beside the Point

However, what PEP-45 actually said and that a misunderstanding occurred are beside the point. Whether GRIP experts should give feedback only if requested is a valid question. We’re debating it now.

@Jinx

…I specifically outlined the pre-proposal category as a place NOT for supporting or lobbying…

GRIP does not control the Pre-Proposal category, nor should it. If people want to use it to see if there’s support for an idea, for lobbying, debate, that’s their prerogative. What role GRIP should play, if any, in the Pre-Proposal category is a different matter.

[zaatar]

This is the second and final instalment of my reply to the community feedback on this pre-proposal for renewal of GRIP.

Part II

1. Payment in General
2. Compensation for meetings
3. GRIP members must stay in their lanes
4. GRIP needs a tweak or two

1. Payment in general

If the community sees value in GRIP and concludes it’s worth renewing, a fair payment mechanism is needed. In keeping with the egalitarian ethos of our DAO, my view is that GRIP members should be paid at an equal rate: $100 an hour seems reasonable. This recognizes that we value folks’ time and contributions the same.

But we are open to considering other reasonable, fair payment solutions.

To @Caesar’s point, if GRIP is to determine how much to pay its members, I agree that PNF should have authority to seek clarifications before payments.

As to the work that was done to date, GRIP expects payment as approved by the DAO - based on PEP-45. I recognize that PEP-45 did not specify that funding applied to work required to set up GRIP and run it. However, it’s implicit in the proposal’s adoption that such work is included.

For GRIP work, if any, pending the renewal vote and a possible change of payment mechanism, the $100 hourly rate will apply. (No more meetings.)

2. Compensation for meetings

As noted, by approving GRIP, the DAO implicitly approved compensation for the work involved in setting it up, which included our first two meetings. A third meeting was held for team input on optimizing our operations.

Of the 133.2 hours billed by GRIP for its three-month trial - gulp - 23.9 hours, or 17.9 percent were for meeting participation. Time in meetings, per GRIP member, ranged from 1 hour to 4 hours.

@b3n says: “Charging for internal meetings is unfathomable to many.” @Jinx also expressed concern.

Reflecting on the appropriateness of billing for attending meetings, I messaged GRIP members, before posting this pre-proposal, to canvass their views.

@@zaatar

— 02/20/2023

BILLING FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS: Should we reduce or eliminate fees for attending meetings? Billing $1000 to the DAO for an hour-long meeting with 10 participants seems greedy. Some compensation, however, is appropriate because (1) it’s our time, and (2) it’s a necessary part of running GRIP. Perhaps it should be more of an honorarium. Say $50 per hr. or per meeting (we could limit them to an hour going forward). Thoughts?

I got three replies:

@Anonymous

I think $50 is palatable, but then does that extend further- for all admin tasks for example?

Fair point that work is work and one wouldn’t bill their employer different tables of costs for different minutes spent.

Additionally, if our budget is $5k and we spend 20% on a meeting, seems excessive.

Appreciate I haven’t actually given an answer, just points and counterpoints . I’m easy either way, I don’t have a strong opinion.

I think however we should only let active contributors on the call- If someone doesn’t actually do anything for GRIP but just listens in for an hour while playing on their phone- should set a participation bar to joining.

@@Qspider

Depends on your perspective. We’re not having meetings every day. We’ve only had 3 meetings I think in the last few months or whenever we started but they were very productive. Normally you get paid in the workplace; it’s company time on meetings. Doesn’t seem greedy to me but I don’t recall the budget we’re working with. I don’t think we had 10 participants but if it becomes an issue I suppose we can work something out.

@@RawthiL

Yeah, charging for meetings seems greedy, but it’s a job that’s required for the grip to function. I don’t have a strong opinion on this, it’s OK if we don’t charge them but is not too greedy to ask for some amount for that time…
@zaatar —
what about $50 per hr?
@RawthiL —
yeah, it’s ok to charge less for something that has no direct impact

The general sentiment among GRIP members appears to be that some compensation for this time is appropriate. I assume that PNF members attend meetings as part of their work and that these are part of the work for which they get paid. Or, when there’s a reimbursement PEP for work on development of a tool that helps the network, that work might include meetings.

What do other community members think? We’re listening.

(Pending further discussion on this, I will defer GRIP’s bill for these hours. That drops GRIP’s billable hours from 133.2 to 109.3.)

3. GRIP members must stay in their lanes

GRIP team members can bill only for work related to their defined roles. The renewal proposal will make this clear.

Accordingly, the economic and technical specialists will be able to bill only for assistance within their respective areas; unless otherwise specified, the editor will be able to bill only for copy editing, proofreading and writing (including infographic text); the graphic artist will be able to bill only for infographic work. As per PEP-45, GRIP members also will be able to bill for their work in creating summaries of competing viewpoints on complex proposals that have been formally launched.

(In view of the above, my bill for 5.1 hours for feedback on Bruce Yin’s translation pre-proposals, including an hour-long Zoom meeting with Ming, is being withdrawn. This drops GRIP’s bill for its three-month trial to 104.2 hours.)

4. GRIP needs a tweak or two

Let’s not forget that GRIP is an experiment. There was no playbook to follow. So it’s only natural that GRIP might not get it right the first time and may need to adapt. It is hoped that the discussion around this pre-proposal will help show what tweaks need to be made to secure GRIP’s place in the DAO-governance toolkit.

@Jinx

I think there is some work to do to tighten up around the original PEP. I have reservations regarding the proposal as is.

@msa6867

A lot to work through. Part of growing pains. Doesn’t mean to throw the baby out with the bath water. Tighten up things that need tightening up. Create an action plan to address the concerns raised in this thread. Then fund for a couple more months and review the results to see how effective the tweaks are.

In the meantime discussions around the bigger questions of how to measure value, how to incentivize and reward a larger set of contributors for value creation, etc., etc need to continue. These are not easy questions and can be worked concurrent to letting GRIP run for another couple months to gather more data and results.

GRIP welcomes all suggestions.

Post-script: GRIP is very grateful to MSA, Caesar, Ben and JInx for their valuable (unpaid ) feedback on this pre-proposal.

[msa6867]

@zaatar

What do other community members think? We’re listening.

Whatever consensus emerges for how meetings and other internal conversations (emails) are handled going forward (assuming GRIP does move forward), it is my opinion that if inclusion of these hours was a reasonable good-faith interpretation of PEP-45, then the DAO needs to honor its PEP-45 agreement. If GRIP wishes to volunteer to remove these hours or have them paid out at 50 rather than 100 for the previous cycle, they can initiate that . Otherwise PNF payout for previous cycle should be as originally billed. More harm will come from the DAO or PNF setting a precedent that it can renege on or “force renegotiate” payment agreements than from paying the $2k or so of differential cost.

Same applies for any of the other discussion points.

@zaatar

(In view of the above, my bill for 5.1 hours for feedback on Bruce Yin’s translation pre-proposals, including an hour-long Zoom meeting with Ming, is being withdrawn. This drops GRIP’s bill for its three-month trial to 104.2 hours.)

This one has me scratching my head. I had figured that these hours, of all the hours billed, were the hours most in line with the purpose and intention of GRIP. Could you please provide insight into what you spent those 5 hours doing (apart from the 1hr consultation with Ming that you line item) if not in helping an inexperienced proposal writer get their proposal ready for publishing? As far as I know, this was the one and only proposal tendered during the previous term by a non-veteran proposal author.