GRIP Renewal

[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?