# PEP-45: Get a GRIP: Group to Review and Improve Proposals **URL:** \ **Category:** Ecosystem\ **Created:** [November 4, 2022, 1:24am UTC](https://forum.pokt.network/t/pep-45-get-a-grip-group-to-review-and-improve-proposals/3634 "2022-11-04T01:24:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 11
**Author:** ![zaatar](https://forum.pokt.network/user_avatar/forum.pokt.network/zaatar/32/386_2.png) [@zaatar](https://forum.pokt.network/u/zaatar)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2022, 2:10pm UTC](https://forum.pokt.network/t/pep-45-get-a-grip-group-to-review-and-improve-proposals/3634/11 "2022-11-13T14:10:46Z")
Thank you Jack, Ben, and Dermot for your comments. Based on your feedback, and input from the GRIP team, two aspects of PEP-45 have been revised as follows: • a monthly budget of $5,000 will be sought from the DAO, and • anyone deemed qualified will be able to join GRIP I discuss these revisions in detail below. Following that I respond to your comments on back channels and pre-proposal feedback from non-GRIP members. Please keep in mind that PEP-45 is for a three-month trial period. If we don’t get it absolutely right out of the gate, we can make changes in the follow-up proposal for renewal of GRIP. # Payment > [@b3n](#): > > Fees per hour, after the fact, up to a cap: I think this is also a bad precedent. While I think these contributors have unimpeachable integrity it would be better to set parameters for the experiment that are not based on hours, even if this requires us to be more generous or expect a lower ROI in the first month/s. … One mechanism could be to fund $X,000 of USD or POKT into a Coordinape circle which the team can allocate bottom up as they see appropriate. Against this, the community can review each month if the output matches the total fund and the team can request more funds if needed. > [@Dermot](#): > > I fully agree with this point and would also be comfortable with a higher $ cap per month, eg $5k(?) for the group. Using a tool like Coordinape … would enable group ownership over their budget and a mechanism which allowed that group to distribute it amongst themselves according to how they viewed each other’s impact and value. > > It should also encourage more transparency and broader accountability as all group members will be encouraged to share their work to increase the legitimacy of the group’s work and awareness of the contribution to its goals. As we chart new territory, finding the best funding mechanism is a challenge. I accept the above suggestion that a fixed amount be granted monthly to GRIP. A $5,000 cap, as Dermot proposes, is reasonable. At the end of each month, GRIP will disburse the budget as it deems appropriate. It will report on the amount paid to each member with details on the work performed. This will enable the community to assess whether it got its money’s worth. If over the three-month life of this project, appropriate compensation for GRIP contributions is over $15,000, a request for further funding can be submitted to the DAO, which accords with Ben’s suggestion that “the team can request more funds if needed.” Conversely, if the contributions come under $15,000, the surplus will be returned to the DAO or, if GRIP renews, roll over to the next funding period, reducing the subsequent DAO grant(s) accordingly. As noted, GRIP will determine how it distributes payment. I prefer paying people for their time and at the same rate. Most work will be in the open, so folks can see the GRIP members’ individual contributions and what they’re getting paid for. While there’s a trust component as regards behind-the-scenes work and in respect to how much time goes into work that’s visible, paying people for their time is fairest. Allocating payment based on “how we view each other’s input and value” is too subjective. If you’re on GRIP, your contribution is treated as equal. Coordinape is not needed; it adds unnecessary complication. # How to Join GRIP > [@JackALaing](#): > > Contribution opportunities like this (the opportunity to participate in the pre-proposal category and get paid for it) should be made available to everyone (not just a privileged group). … This proposal should not preclude others from being paid for exactly the same work. > [@Dermot](#): > > It would be good to understand how it is open to others to participate and join the group as an expert. Suppose the group used a coordinape circle, for example. In that case, 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. I agree with Dermot that new members should be eligible to join once they demonstrate they have sufficient skill/knowledge/expertise and existing members of the group vouch for them. (Again, however, Coordinape is unnecessary.) A pool or roster of folks available to serve on GRIP could thus be created. 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. This also would make paid contribution opportunities at the pre-proposal stage available to everyone who’s qualified - albeit on a rotating basis, thereby addressing one of Jack’s concerns. # Feedback on Pre-proposals From Outside GRIP Team Jack notes that not paying everyone for their pre-proposal contributions “would be a disservice to ourselves because we would be losing out on valuable contributions and insights.” He echoes concerns raised by Dermot: > [@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. > > Can general community members comment on pre-proposals? We don’t want to exclude potentially valuable input pre-proposal from other interested members. Further, encouraging a culture of collaboration and participation is extremely valuable IMO, and others may realise that supporting pre-proposals without any pay may become a viable pathway to joining an existing coordinape circle, or simply building up a better reputation in the community more generally. In the main, the channel for feedback on pre-proposals will be the Pre-Proposal category in the Forum. Anyone can participate and add their input. Some community members might do so to build a reputation and establish their credentials, perhaps in order to join GRIP. If a GRIP roster is created with active paid roles rotated quarterly, the community will know that the pool of “relevant people to seek counsel from” includes inactive roster members – not just the acting GRIP team. 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.” # Back Channels Jinx has addressed this concern at length. I will add but a few comments. **Back Door to PNI** > [@JackALaing](#): > > We should tend away from building processes that create backchannels. Rather than “consulting PNI Protocol and Engineering teams”, which suggests that GRIP would play the middleman, PNI Protocol and Engineering teams should be looped in directly to a proposal where possible. I agree. However, in the event that GRIP needs to consult the PNI Protocol and Engineering teams, it will try and do so openly in the Pre-Proposal category. **Culture of Constructive Feedback** > [@JackALaing](#): > > Also, while I recognize that some contributors may be nervous about public critique of their ideas, I think it would be healthy for our community to learn to develop a culture of constructive feedback, without the need for more backchannels. > [@Dermot](#): > > …fewer back channels would lead to a more incredible culture of collaboration and participation…. While PEP-45 does allow for private contact between GRIP and would-be contributors – it does not encourage it. Justifications for a private-contact option are that it will hearten those who might need a nudge and those who might otherwise refrain from contributing. GRIP will encourage contributors who seek private advice to transition as soon as possible to open dialogue in the Pre-Proposal category. **Setting an Example** > [@Dermot](#): > > As this group is a high-quality group of contributors, the wider community can benefit from looking at how you all work together. As it will show many others how they can also lead by example. > > Good examples of this group working together should also make it easier to launch some of the guilds that I know @JackALaing and other members of his team are seeking to launch in the coming weeks and months. It’s anticipated that most or nearly all of GRIP’s work will be visible in the Forum Pre-Proposal and proposal categories where the community will be able to witness how the team “works together.” --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.pokt.network/t/pep-45-get-a-grip-group-to-review-and-improve-proposals/3634)._