GRIP Renewal

[zaatar]

@msa6867

Delaying the process is not helpful; we are already approaching a one-month gap in DAO funding continuity.

To clarify, PEP-45 provided for continuing funding till the renewal vote. The funding format for this interregnum will be responsive to the feedback we’ve received.

@msa6867

A cursory check shows the proposal still shows “open-ended” vs a two or three month defined follow-on , so I’m guessing the former or a mixture?

Title now changed.

@msa6867

I think we are approaching the point where most of the profitable input has already been given and digested… I recommend cleaning up the draft to reflect promised changes …bring to full-proposal status, quickly work out any new discussion against the revised draft, and put to a vote to let the experiment continue.

Will do.

Thanks for your feedback!!

[b3n]

Thanks for the call to action for users of the service to share their feelings directly - this can really illuminate us all.

Also, agree with @msa6867 in giving credit where it is due that a lot of the feedback is being infused into this new version of GRIP. I think a crisp updated version of GRIP should be provided if/when moved to the Proposals category so everyone can rapidly understand without having to parse the whole discussion here.

@zaatar

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.

It’s great that GRIP identified this need but rather than building a bureacracy around jurisdiction and mandate they can just use an advice process where they engage people who are knowledgable or impacted but then use that advice as they see fit, rather than letting a single input define what you can and cannot do

@zaatar

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

If GRIP were to open a socket they would:

• Outline the nature of their work and experiments
• Commit to working in the open, by providing links to their discord server and content repository and by self-reporting monthly on their work and impact
  In return they would receive:
• an optimistic payment of $3K a month from PNF to allocate as they see fit
• a rolling continuation of that payment and their service until such time as there is consensus within PNF that it should be wound down

I think a Socket would have ameliorated what has happened with the first GRIP experiment because the team would have been working in the open, receiving earlier and more regular feedback from the whole community, and would have had a chance to adjust course in real time rather than receiving what has probably felt like a rather large dump of pent up feedback.

[zaatar]

@b3n

an optimistic payment of $3K a month

What’s an “optimistic” payment? How did you arrive at $3K?

[b3n]

@zaatar

What’s an “optimistic” payment?

We optimistically assume the team is holding themselves to a high standard around iterating with users, generating value and self reporting. If over time it starts to feel like that’s not the case we will dive deeper.

@zaatar

How did you arrive at $3K?

It can be 1, 2 or 3K but is capped at $3K because we want a value that is large enough to create a strong body of evidence but small enough that larger work is still ultimately the domain of the DAO. I suggested $3K based on your current budget being above the upper limit.