As usual, I will not comment on the past and specific reimbursements (for now).
Picking PNF’s operating philosophies that I think are relevant in this context:
-Gardening, not Gatekeeping
-Clarifying, not Controlling
-Partnering, not Parenting
I think GRIP’s services should be on a need basis. GRIP can help draft the template and the guidelines, which I believe are already done.
And then let the author/s decide whether to seek help from GRIP or not.
If an author/s needs guidance/assistance in drafting a proposal or in something very specific in the proposal, GRIP’s services could be at disposal. Such as, an author might need help just in infographics and nothing else.
GRIP should be an enabler, not an enforcer and a regulator.
Any billable hour should also be signed off by the author/s, and PNF should have authority to seek clarifications before payments.
In general, the DAO (PNF) should be anal in making such decisions because they set precedents.
And without getting into the details- we have seen lately what precedents can lead to.
To end- I think services and committees such as GRIP could add value but we should take several other things into consideration.
I think that your general point of view is valid but some things that you propose are hard to achieve.
This was the main idea behind the original GRIP and this is how it worked. Authors posting in the pre-proposal section are seeking some kind of feedback and agreeing to the GRIP group mechanics. This feedback can come from general community or by the process of the GRIP group.
Maybe there should be a process for this, when only specific help is needed. I think that people posting in pre-proposals are looking for general advice or just checking the community acceptance. If the author is confident with his proposal, s/he can directly post a proposal and if s/he only needed help on specific parts, then that could be handled in private by the GRIP.
This could be difficult to handle. What if authors do not want to acknowledge GRIPs advice as they might think it is not fit/valid?
(or just because they can be annon-trolls)
I will defer other comments on this thread until next week when I am back in the office, but for the moment, let me piggyback on this thought. Process improvement is definitely needed. The pre-proposal category is very useful completely apart from GRIP I suggest decoupling GRIP functionality from Pre-proposal category. GRIP involvement for authors/proposers who wish GRIP’s assistance can be accomplished outside view of the public (e.g., shaping a google docs draft by collaborative effort between author and GRIP members - so long as the process to go down the road is published so anyone can use this route) or in the view of the public (a new GRIP subcategory under Forum governance). In the case of the latter, the public could view the shaping of the draft but only GRIP would comment/shape/interact - and that specifically and only for the purpose of getting the draft in presentable form, not to gatekeep or give their personal views as community members as to the merits of the proposal.
The pre-proposal category becomes what is has mainly been used for these last two months - 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). This kind of interaction is a wider community function, not a GRIP function. The utility of having the pre-proposal category for this purpose rather than just jumping directly to a PIP/PEP/PUP is that it allows a more collaborative relation between the author and community in finding right parameter value, funding size, etc than may occur with directly dropping a PIP/PUP/PEP. 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 and only investing the time and effort to turn the topic into a formal proposal if it is gauged that there is sufficient community support to at least have a fighting chance to pass the proposal. My IDEAS on conducting 24hr or 48hr straw polls could be useful in this context.
Preproposals are standard practice in all efficient governance. Imagine Congress having to draft and redraft a 2000 page spending bill before even knowing if there is support for the total budget of the bill. Rather, a short preposal for X total budget with “details TBD” is debated, support gauged, and only then is the effort put in to draft the 2000 page document for formal discussion, debate and reshaping of the details.
In terms of relationship with GRIP, GRIPs assistance, if requested, can come at any time, but one logical flow would be as follows: author creates a pre-proposal on a topic to gauge community interest. If feedback shows that interest is sufficient, the author then might request GRIP assistance in converting the topic into a formal proposal.
Let’s assume that I had typed SER’s first big pre/proposal uploads instead of @msa6867 and someone from GRIP would have nudged me for help. Let’s assume they noticed some trivia such as typos, grammatical errors, or some data mismatch by mistake. I say thank you, I have corrected it and I don’t need any further help in this pre/proposal.
How would you have wanted me to handle this?
I believe that author/s should be at least in co-charge.
We have to give weightage to someone who makes an effort to write a pre/proposal, manages to get attention from the community and trigger a debate.
Sign-offs for GRIP billable hours is anyway retroactive.
I think this is very hypothetical and forum residents can handle this. Brainless/irrelevant posts created will not gain any traction.
I had one post where I didn’t get a single reply. That was during my early days in forum.
So I don’t underestimate the crowd in forum; Telegram is a different story.
Btw hearsay is that there will be mod/s in forum soon.
By this I meant “one time” templates and guidelines document for pre-proposal/proposal.
Btw another option could be to program the templates with definitions for each category/drop downs in PNF’s (@Ming@b3n ) forum-upgrade milestone. Authors will have to maintain certain standards by design and not go haywire.
FYI- I am all for neatness, basic standardisation and templatisation, and also for guidance (if it’s consensual/agreed by the author).
I appreciate the option to get help but not the policing.
Have to repeat-
Another point- “Incentives drive outcomes” should be the guiding principle, irrespective of the type of organisation and community imo.
But at the same time, in distributed, open systems and in commons we should make an effort to leave some room and keep the playground conducive for volunteers, who are just happy to help and don’t expect compensation for every minute and hour.
In the original proposal, one of my points was this:
The idea being that the Preproposal wouldn’t be litigated in the topic, just refined, and that the scope of GRIP would be narrow and focused. In reality though, they’ve just become the first place a proposal gets debated. I’m not sure that serves the purpose of the original PEP-45. Combined with the amount of hours that have been billed for meetings, the push to make GRIP a default function versus just something asked for, billing for community member time that otherwise would have been normal debate, and seeing GRIP offering services to third party vendors, I think there is some work to do to tighten up around the original PEP. I have reservations regarding the proposal as is.
@zaatar , the link to the details behind your line item in the time log is password protected. Can you please remove the password protection and indicate when done, or else share here the password.
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?
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:
…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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Purpose of pre-proposals and Pre-Proposal category
Debate is unavoidable - and helpful
Mode of GRIP feedback: Concerns
GRIP expert feedback in the Pre-Proposal category: Benefits
Paying for unsolicited feedback in the Pre-Proposal category
Advantages
Governance concerns
Fairness concerns
Adding new members to GRIP
GRIP feedback and other services: By request only
Further trial period
Help only upon request pending renewal vote
Part II (to be published shortly)
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:
Here’s what MSA thinks:
Jinx takes a narrow view:
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.
"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:
Translation:
GRIP feedback in the Pre-Proposal category resembles typical proposal debating which should not be compensated.
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.)
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.
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
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:
Fairness concerns
MSA comments:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
I believe that’s a good start.
This is quite a change from:
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.
Are you seeking to rotate the GRIP team with this next stage proposal?
