GRIP Renewal

[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.