PEP-45: Get a GRIP: Group to Review and Improve Proposals

[Dermot (Dermot O'Riordan)]

Hey @zaatar - it’s fantastic to see the brilliant group you’ve brought around this idea. So well done.

The motives and intended result of improving governance proposals and increasing their chances of success - for both the proposer and the ecosystem as a whole - is a worthy aim.

My two questions relate solely to the implementation, namely:

1 .Compensation

@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. This is another element to the trial/experiment. 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. I am more than happy to establish and help operate this mechanism if desired

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 (full disclosure: I am a very small investor by way of my past role as a partner at the VC, Eden Block) 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 their contribution to its goals.

2.Membership and broader community input

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.

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