@fartunov@daniel-ospina in response to the ESD Compensation for March and April I would like to formally request the release of further funding to compensate to the same standard as all others have access to under this approved proposal
Charter: forum posts to provide clear and transparent guidance for DAO processes
For a total of 7k specifically to reward the development of S1 funding proposals and supporting documents. As the lead author of these proposals and documented processes, I wish to nominate the following contributors to this effort form a second coordinape circle to allocate these funds across the following @AlexClay@joeycharlesworth@b3n@ronald_k@fartunov@daniel-ospina@lee0007 I would further ask that all people in the circle be eligible to recieve GIVE rather than limiting the size and effectiveness of the circle
Also would like to nominate the EVM-crisper and the DAOstar.one authors for receiving compensation as per the scout program. I believe the proposals fit the criteria new (not repeat) funding requests/proposals that have passed and the authors have not been compensated.
I ask because they are both listed as team members of the proposal which I understand typically meant eligible to receive compensation.
So the limitations can be adapted, provided we apply the same provision to all proposal authors since 15 March. We need to draw a line somewhere otherwise all authors could become eligible for Scout Reward which was not the intended purpose of this program and was not accounted for in the 20k budget request @fartunov where would you propose we draw the line between contributor developed proposals and independent authors?
Due to the stated limitations, I have not claimed an additional 3k funding for authoring this proposal, because at the time of writing this was the proposal under which I would receive funding.
I reference the Scout Program as the current established method, to calculate and reward proposal authors. I did however expect the requested funds to be released from the strategic development budget, as per the first coordinape circle for
Yes, confusing and overly complex and as @daniel-ospina mentions above only intended as an S1 solution until we establish improved systems for fair compensation cc @AlexClay@Ricktik6 thoughts?
Fair point, I had forgotten about the limitation. Let’s proceed as intended.
It makes more sense for dgov circle to rethink processes from first principles and start with something simple than for us to keep bandaiding things that were designed with an expiration date in mind
Nominating @AlexClay for the Scout Program Funding for the Bounties for leads proposal here
Fee Request : people are encouraged to request a payment that they believe they have earned.
Fee Limits : In all cases the maximum fee request must be the lesser of either 5% of value funded or $3000 .The final allocation will be open to negotiation with the ESD. Funding will not be dispersed until ESD is formally notified as per the fee notification process.
However, as I am unsure as to the extend of the crossover with roles including AA Head of Network Ops and Transparency, and AN DAO Finance Steward I will leave this to the author to self-nominate and advise here a requested amount as per the process
I worked with @daniel-ospina 8 months ago defining the Financial Proposal Template, so we could request funds for EVMcrispr, although who really got hooked with the proposal, helped me understand AN DAO dynamics, and scouted the proposal to the current form has been @brent and @alibama.
This is why I’d like to publicly acknowledge the value provided by these two memebers of Aragon dTech to the EVMcrispr proposal, and I nominate them to receive the rewards from the Scout Programme.
Obviously I also extend my gratitude to everyone involved in the discussions that conducted to the ultimate approval of the proposal: the ESD, the Technical Committee, the Core Team, and the rest of Aragon users who got involved in the thread. Your support and feedback has been key as well for the success of the proposal, thank you very much.
ESD General Meeting Monday 30 April UTC 1900: In regards to the request to release 7k strategic development funding as requested by @lee0007 post #14above 2/3 support @fartunov@daniel-ospina@lee0007 recuse. This was not a stongly supported decision due to the challenges around the process which see us determining our own funding. Please refer to minutes This will be the FINAL retrospective funding request from the ESD, an approved Main DAO proposal is needed to remedy all future changes to ESD rewards.
if we’re gonna be 100% transparent here what i want more than $$s is a feature request c14.money is gonna be live soon & an llc’d e-commerce dao == super fun
talked to @brent and agree we should put this $$s in to the @Ricktik6 coordinape bounty project to encourage more work in this space and thank everyone on the team for the work they’re doing = @lee0007 what’s the process here?
@Ricktik6 please read the Scout Program and the above definitions of the three funding allocation so that you are familiar with funding and not misdirecting people. Given that 3k is the maximum available to authors of proposals it would be highly unlikely that contributors would request or be rewarded the maximum.
@brent@alibama please request the value you believe you earned in relation to the EVM Crispr proposal here
I agree with the approach (again a band-aid). However the funding should be returned from the ESD to the Main DAO and be disbursed from there. We are starting to have many-to-many flows.
For the sake of transparency it is easier if the whole budget of an initiative comes from a single entity within the DAO.