GRIP Renewal

[zaatar]

This is my response to the latest input from Dermot, msa, Steve and b3n.

NOTE: GRIP is up and running and our services are now opt-in only. So if you want GRIP feedback on a technical or economic idea or pre-proposal - you’ve got to request it. Same with infographics and proofreading/copy editing. You, the DAO, voted this grassroots initiative into existence to help with proposals. But it will do what you intended it to do only if you use it. (As per PEP-45, GRIP will run till the vote on renewal.)

TOC

1. Direct Impact: Author Assistance
2. Feedback and Copy Editing: Secondary Impacts
3. Harvesting Feedback
4. New Payment Mechanism
5. In-house Consultancy Model
6. GRIP Growth: New Members
7. Proposal Templates: Wha’ Happened?
8. Miscellaneous: msa’s ‘aha’ moment; Proposal Guide ‘too GRIPpy’

@Dermot

It is the role of the DAO to determine what impact means for this community and to opine on value creation…It would really help all of us to determine this if the GRIP team spoke in the language of impact and told us all about how they believe they made a difference.

1. Direct Impact: Assistance to Author

Let’s look at how the time devoted to pre-proposal assistance over GRIP’s 3-month trial (Nov 22-Feb 22) breaks down.

GRIP member	Nature of Help	Hours	Pre-Proposal	Author
Shane	Expert Feedback	9.5	LeanPocket and Chocolate Rain reimbursement	PoktBlade
“	“	2.5	Geo-Mesh reimbursement	Jorge_POKTscan
@Rawthil	“	2.5	SER	@msa6867
@PikPokt	“	1	SALES	@cryptocorn*
TOTAL	Expert Feedback	20
@zaatar	Copy Editing	4.5	LeanPocket and Chocolate Rain reimbursement	PoktBlade
“	Draft Proposal Preparation Guide	20

*Cryptocorn’s pre-proposal, SALES, was launched as a channel under “Pre-Proposals” on the Get a GRIP Discord server as part of our set-up testing.

@Dermot

If we are told that the DAO is to be charged $500 for economic analysis of X proposal that led to changes Y and Z, at least we are having a more productive conversation. It would be really helpful if those that GRIP helped would comment publicly on the value they received.

To determine measurable benefit, says @b3n, we can use “any type of testimonial or qualitative user feedback.”

To assess the direct impact of the feedback and copy editing services that GRIP provided, we must ask the authors who received services if they benefited and if so, how and to what extent. @PoktBlade? @Jorge_POKTcan? @Msa6867? @Cryptocorn? To quote Dermot: “Was the cost to the DAO,” IE the actual time devoted to GRIP assistance (noted above), “proportional to the perceived value you received?”

2. Feedback and Copy Editing: Secondary Impacts

To assess the impact of feedback it’s not enough to ask the authors. We also need to canvass the other discussion participants, both active and passive, as they too may have benefitted. The feedback may have affected their replies in the thread and/or their understanding of/positions on the pre-proposal issues.

Secondary impacts are referred to in PEP-45:

@zaatar

By leveraging community expertise …this proposal will invigorate the proposal process, widen community participation, enhance debate and improve governance.

How does one measure these knock-on effects? In my view, common sense must prevail. We can take it as a given that quality feedback elevates debate on pre-proposals for the good of lurkers and active participants. We can take it as a given that a proposal that’s been amended following GRIP detection of technical flaws or unexpected economic outcomes, is good for governance. We can take it as a given that a well-written proposal facilitates voting. These are impacts that we value highly, yet they defy easy measurement.

3. Harvesting Feedback

@Dermot

And going forward - if this program is to continue - I would recommend for the GRIP team to seek feedback after each contribution that can be made public or aggregated privately and released anonymously (TBD on the best way to do this to encourage the most honest feedback…), so all of us - as DAO voters responsible for stewarding the treasury - can understand the value received and the relative cost/benefit of the program.

I agree. A “Rate This Feedback” button could be installed beneath all replies in the Pre-Proposal category. (is this doable @jackal?) When anyone from GRIP posts feedback, the pre-proposal author or any other community member can publicly rate it: 1 not helpful, 2 somewhat helpful, 3 very helpful.

There’d be an option for comments, but not to distract, these could be viewable upon clicking.

In addition, a question could be inserted at the top of Proposal templates: “If you received assistance from GRIP, please comment on whether it helped and if so, how. EG, to what extent did GRIP feedback shape this proposal? If you received copy editing, does your proposal read better?” Other questions could be inserted. The answers could be a footnote to the proposal and/or published elsewhere.

However, as noted above, ratings and commentary may not tell the whole story.

4. New Payment Mechanism

@steve

For a max investment of $5,000 per month we want to incentivize 10 long-time community members to spend more time than they already do helping others with proposals. For less than the investment in a single PNF core team member, these 10 people will do whatever they can to help the community confidently submit more proposals that are better written.

We trust these 10 people because they have proven track records in our community. So we won’t ask them to justify their time. Just like we trust the members of the core PNF team and don’t ask them to justify their time. However, on a quarterly basis, we’ll reflect and consider if it’s worth continuing with them. As we should also do for the PNF core team.

This eliminates the concerns with the use of the hours altogether. Simple.

Excellent idea. Let’s adopt it. Says @b3n: “Teams’ internal allocations are their domain and everyone else can stay the hell out of it.“

GRIP will detail its contributions and, to quote @b3n in the PEP-45 thread, “the community can review each month if the output matches the total fund and the team can request more funds if needed.” It’s not the hours people care about, notes @b3n, it’s the value add.

For a month when GRIP’s contributions don’t warrant the full $5K, it would request a lower amount.

This will render unnecessary reporting to authors on how many hours were devoted to feedback/editing/infographics and preclude petty squabbles about the appropriateness of time allocation.

At the same time, however, we are open to exploring other payment mechanisms. EG, how would a Socket work? @b3n?

5. In-house Consultancy Model

@Dermot

If GRIP is to continue, I would strongly recommend that GRIP be treated like an in-house consultancy service that proposal authors can leverage as they require. Proposal authors should engage GRIP for specific services - eg technical review, grammar checks, etc

GRIP has already switched to an opt-in only format.

@Dermot

Such a workflow should also remove any need for internal meetings: 1) a proposal author asks for help; 2) a relevant member of GRIP puts up their hand to say they will help; 3) they do the work if chosen to do so by the author (who could also choose someone else); 4) the GRIP member says what they did and how much time it took them; 5) the work is approved by the proposal author based on the value they believe they received.

Yes to steps 1-3. For step 4, it may not be necessary to say what they did if it’s publicly viewable. As to the time taken, this can be reported internally (and published if needed). As to step 5, the proposal author will give feedback publicly as noted above (“Harvesting Feedback”); GRIP will take this feedback into account in allocating payment.

6. GRIP Growth: New Members

From the PEP-45 thread:

@b3n

…we should be inclusive to anyone who can complement this team with additional talent and insight. I support a lite permission mechanism where anyone can opt-in to participate.

@Dermot

new members could join once they demonstrate they have sufficient skill/knowledge of the overall processes to justify their inclusion (eg via the vouching of one or two of the existing members of the group) and only get paid if they delivered enough value, as determined by the group itself.

From this thread:

@Dermot

A naive model would allow anyone to “join” GRIP, and for the proposal author to choose who they wanted support from. A public record of each member - and the skills they claim to be most useful for - and feedback from every proposal author that uses GRIP would enable an emergent reputation score that proposal authors can leverage.

This is what the renewal pre-proposal says:

“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.”

Are even these requirements too onerous? Should anyone be able to join GRIP simply upon request? No vouching needed? What do people think?

7. Proposal templates: Wha’ Happened?

@Dermot

regarding the updated proposal templates, I have seen the PEP template here, which doesn’t appear to be finished? Is there a projected timeline for finalising this @zaatar ? And do you have an estimate for when the updated proposal templates for PIPs and PUPs will be released?

The templates are not a PEP-45 deliverable; the community did not mandate GRIP to update these. GRIP embarked on this as it perceived a need and there was community buy-in, including from PNF. However, a community member opposed GRIP’s design. Since we lack a mandate, GRIP lacks jurisdiction to decide. Completing the templates will be part of our renewal proposal; the community can vote on whether it wants us to make these decisions, albeit as collaboratively as possible.

Scorecards

Also not part of GRIP’s mandate is submitting a scorecard on community pre-proposals. In the comment cited below, is @Dermot suggesting that we assume this task?

@Dermot

We hope that many active contributors - including groups like GRIP - will submit their own versions of the scorecard to each debate proposal. And that we can then work together to iron out our differences and align around the fair share of the DAO’s treasury to award for the proposal in question.

See: Compensation Structure for DAO Contributors

8. Miscellaneous

msa’s ‘aha’ moment

@msa6867

On a separate note, i just had an aha moment that may greatly simplify GRIP and ensure alignment of everyone’s interest going forward. …

Authors who wish GRIP services should have skin in the game. Even if it is $10 or $20 an hr. Let’s say $10 to reduce the friction of would-be authors. Authors contact GRIP (e.g., via Discord), explain what they need, receive an estimate of how many hours that will take and the author decides if they want to proceed or not. If they want to proceed they send the $POKT to the designated wallet to cover the estimate (say 1600 $POKT to cover 8hrs of estimated work assuming $10/hr and $0.05 price point). This PEP becomes an agreement for DAO subsidizes the other 80 to 90% of GRIP costs to make whole at $100/hr. At the end of the month GRIP invoices PNF for reimbursement of work done (at $90/hr in this example). Proof of author’s payment of the first 10% plus some sort of evidence of executed work would accompany the invoice. …

In the future, this might be a good idea for pre-proposals that seek monetary reward. For now, however, with GRIP yet to take hold, and with its services being provided only upon request, it’s important to let people try it out and see if they find it helpful. People need to test-drive GRIP and a user fee might discourage that now. Once people get a taste of GRIP’s value, we can look at a nominal user fee.

Proposal Guide “too GRIPpy”

@Dermot

My only negative on the work is that it seems to suggest GRIP a little too much for my taste as the primary option for feedback and community support, as opposed to simply engaging with the community in the relevant channels before asking for formal support.

With respect, this criticism is misplaced. Wherever GRIP is mentioned as an option for support, it’s always in the alternative and not as the “primary” option. The only place where GRIP was noted otherwise was in the final paragraph:

“Still have questions? Ask GRIP. We’re here to help. You can reach us in the
#proposal-support channel on the Pocket Discord server or follow this link to our Discord server and contact us in the #public-lobby channel.”

I’ve changed this to read:

“Still have questions? Post them in the #proposal-support channel on the Pocket Discord server. Or you can ask GRIP. Follow this link to the Get a GRIP Discord server and contact us in the #public-lobby channel.”

Generally, highlighting the utility of GRIP where relevant in the guide may help drive the use of a tool (GRIP) that the DAO has created to benefit the community. Nothing wrong with that.