Hi,
Regarding the proposal directly, I think it’s a great idea for us to pay well for good contributors, and a good idea to listen to the needs of good contributors to retain them.
Taking this opportunity to ask some additional context about the ESD that I am ignorant of.
GM!
Happy to see this as I think the ESD provides great value. I’d love to also see answers to the questions @Harry asked above.
I have 3 comments/questions:
Thanks!
Anthony
the ESD has done significant work since i’ve been participating = founding and supporting teams such as dtech, community dev, growth and more - i think the ability to experiment and test new approaches has proven itself valuable.
Since the dgov proposal i have seen @lee0007 put together a tremendous number of proposals and show significant commitment to providing clear leadership in this space… 200ant seems very low for her work.
@fartunov @daniel-ospina - do you think your work in the ESD space requires more funding? do you have bandwidth or interest in increasing your work if you receive more funding? how do you see your value in this work and community engagement being measured to assert the need?
perhaps we could couple this promotion with a vote to increase the number of ESD members to offset the burden? @Shawncubbedge and @SpectraCryptoVerse both come to mind as procedurally driven and community oriented team members who might be able to support the existing ESD team through the next 6-9 months so we retain the value of the ESD without overburdening anyone
Hey Renee, thank you for this proposal!
I agree the 200 ANT compensation is inadequate. I have flagged this multiple times at the beginning of the AN DAO life. Once while the charter was being drafted and the second time when I criticized the rigged election process we ran (you will see low financial incentive as one of the bullet-points on the attached screenshot)
My stance does not change. The compensation is inadequate. And I generally agree with the concept of higher base compensation - I believe in the next iteration of the DAO, the top N delegates (not sure what number is adequate) should be compensated. However, changing the incentives in-between doesn’t sit well with me, as announcing that the role pays what is a living wage in many parts of the world could have ended up with a different set of candidates.
I believe a Coordinape circle (like the ones we used for the S1 high volume bonus payments) is substantially more appropriate. To @Anthony.Leuts 's point, such a mechanism reards contributors who do more work. That being said, I recognize that someone like you who contributes to the network full-time deserves a more predictable compensation.
On the topic of Coordinape circles and for the community to be able to actually evaluate the proposal @Ricktik6 should disclose the compensations each of the ESD members has received for April and May from the DAO through various mechanisms (ESD, bounties, Coordinape circles).
As this proceeds, I think it should not be a “yes/no” vote but give a few options 1500/2000/2500/3000 on the USDC supplement to the 200 ANT payment.
Concerning the future of the ESD, I believe the delegates should completely replace the ESD…if such a sub-DAO reemerges at a later point in time, it should be from the actual need to extend a working system, as opposed to attempting to engineer for edge cases from the beginning.
As I am going to be potentially impacted by the outcome of this vote, I will ultimately abstain. All for giving 200 ANT to @AlexClay for his contribution - this is the one question I will vote on
Hey Harry, I’m not sure we will exist after the arrival of delegates TBD in the reworking of the Charter
Currently, the re-election rules are in the Charter pg 16 and voting would fall due September 2022 so I expect we will have a better answer to these question by then? cc @Anthony.Leuts
Newly approved [90:10](Aragon Voice) And at this point, until the Charter is changed 200 ANT is non-negotiable. The point is to have some fixed reward above the 200 ANT. For Daniel and I this is the only fixed reward we receive within the DAO, despite the fact I undertake other work.
Unfortunately, while I have directly helped to fund nearly every other contributor - it took Daniel and I reaching burnout to try to remedy the situation. It’s been a thankless and isolating role and still fails to pay anywhere near what we would be paid to execute IRL at this level.
Appreciate the recognition that the work is NOT evenly distributed and it’s been near impossible to have the additional work rewarded fairly while also accounting for the fact that @fartunov has a paid role within the AA which goes a long way to building context that Daniel and I undertake in our own time.
Thanks for the vote of confidence @alibama dGov is now in place to support the existing governance bodies - ESD Tech & Compliance - See my reply to Harry above ^^^ re the long-term existence of the ESD
@fartunov again! lol, this puce pink stands out well on the forum. I applied in good faith as it did not appear rigged to me. I appreciate your point of view on the rigged election but then why would you knowingly take part?
You have repeated your perspective on every possible occasion while taking NO ACTION to remedy the situation. You are paid the most to be here as a member of the ESD, you have the context of also working within the AA and yet did not provide me with the strategic documents needed in the S1 funding round. @joeycharlesworth asked you to and supplied them himself when they were not forthcoming. You could have been creating and passing proposals to remedy your concerns. I am not the only one that sees this.
Agree on financial transparency. Should this also include your AA work too or at least some percentage of it? How do we fairly account for the cross-over here? Here is what we have for Financial Transparency cc @AlexClay @Ricktik6
Imo the coordinape circle fails entirely to account for the fact of people also employed within the Aragon Association a role that provides both privilege and time to build context that neither Daniel nor I have. @AlexClay as you operate in a similar situation what % of DAO payment rewards do you think should be waived by AA members to account for the privilege, access to information and time your paid roles attract? I would like to know especially in regards to coordinape funding where this seems to be most evident and possibly impacting participation rates?
Rather than coordinape, my suggestion has always been that we have a fixed reward reduced based on performance against deliverables, with no extra reward paid for anything less than 80% across all deliverables
| KPI’s | Reward |
|---|---|
| 100% | 2500 |
| 90% | 1500 |
| 80% | 500 |
This would help address the imbalance @Anthony.Leuts has identified and the concerns @alibama raised for the value-added. I am currently reporting on behalf of the entire team, so if this funding is awarded I would ask we vote to make it performance-based and that we each report to the community on individual accountability against KPI’S.
As per the ESD General meeting this morning I am going to propose the ESD release funding for @AlexClay based on our ability to make grants to other community members. And will remove this from the original proposal above.
Renee, as always, I appreciate and respect your perspective!
I completely agree.
The role within ESD is a big contributor to my burnout, as a result of which I had to switch to 3 days per week at AA in April (something that I have shared with you). Honestly, that you continue to see me as “the enemy” as it comes across from your post is hurtful. Everyone who has tried to contribute to the network while being part of both the AA and the AN DAO has been on the receiving end of being branded as “the enemy” at some point over the past six months, whether it has been @Anthony.Leuts @AlexClay or @b3n.
Because I believe trying to salvage this initiative is a fight worth fighting. From your post, I gather my contribution is not appreciated; if this is a widely shared consensus, I am happy to hear the community members who feel this way and resign from the ESD. Can I entrust you to facilitate the process in a way that will protect their privacy if they choose to remain private?
My role within the AA had very little to do with the AN DAO until June 2022. The only touch-point until that point was the launch of dTech. Any time spent with the AN DAO or any collaboration effort has been in my capacity as a community member and a token holder.
I apologize for taking 3 days to get to this. Were these documents helpful, honestly? Neither the strategies nor sharing them only with the ESD were sufficient efforts - my focus was to attempt to convince the team to share them with everyone (as in Aragon’s community and the larger web3 ecosystem), as I told you at the time.
Also happy to not receive anything from the coordinape circle or forgo the base compensation or both if that will sit better with the community. Deciding in this thread or putting it up for a vote is up to you.
Agreed to the performance against deliverables to address the imbalance and value-added.
I’m sorry to hear that ESD team members feel under appreciated. I personally greatly value your contributions and as mentioned before, believe all contributors who bring incredible value to the Aragon ecosystem, should be compensated and celebrated. Clearly a pain point that we need to address as we further decentralise.
This is another reason I believe we need to continue to simplify the system and reduce complexity.
You have my gratitude and love and I will vote yes on an increase in a base salary to support your continued effort, if as mentioned, the imbalances are taken into consideration.
A couple of quick points here from a completely objective basis, I am not going to get in to some points as I am one who has contributed to some of the problems.
We can not expect people to be engaged on 200 ANT per month and therefore can’t then alter the funding for a ongoing basis based on this information. I think looking at past engagement based on this is unfair and not helpful. The fact that Renee has stuck around and worked super hard should be rewarded, not punished because others have not been paid to stay up to date which they should not have been expected to. I also feel this as a personal failure to have not have solved sooner.
I think 2500 is the bare minimum that we should expect to allow people to stay up to date alone.
Agree to the retroactively and would like to see this in April as well start of the season.
On the AA to AN DAO this should be solved ASAP, I am trying to opt in for additional work, I am opting out of funding for the two circles this season. It is now getting personally more difficult as we become more and more integrated to make this distinction and lines are getting blurred.
I will be voting yes for the base, for the retroactive reimbursement and fully back all the work that you have done in a very challenging environment.
I think Alex has summed it up nice and succinctly. If it provides clarity until delegation design becomes clear and the contributing members of the ESD find it reasonable I will vote for it.
Two other things:
This ESD group should engage with the umbrella team to 1, get help navigating these tricky topics and 2, be an example of change to the rest of the DAO and community who have to sit here and watch your complicated energy play out on the forum.
The pathway to ruin runs through segmenting ourselves by whether we have historically been in the DAO or the AA teams. One thing is universal and that is everyone has a desire to see the best version of Aragon possible
Thank you for the added perspective, Alex. Indeed I have given the initial faulty design substantially more attention than it deserves.
I would request any voted base payment be transferred directly to unchain.fund for as long as I receive my salary from the AA. This will also remove my personal conflict and allow me to support the proposal as keeping @lee0007 in the community and compensating her fairly for her efforts is more important for the network.
Problem: Here is something we can all agree on - burnout.
Solution: My response to that burnout was dGov my attempt to decentralise my work within the ESD. I experienced a problem and created a proposal to address it. Same here above with @daniel-ospina leadership and your support.
Problem: All three of us [ESD] are perceived as the “enemy” at times, it seems inherent in the role which lacks any visibility into the time we put into this. I can see this with
Solution: Suggest a % reduction of DAO rewards in some way [TBD] proportionate to the AA-funded role.
Problem: I am aware of my characteristic tendency to focus on what we can improve (performance-driven orientation) versus what is already very good, as seen here.
Solution: I am sorry that I failed to communicate that I greatly value working with you Ivan and for the record, I believe
you are mission-critical to the success of this DAO
you informed my understanding of transparency - easy access to clear, concise information
you have modelled this well and delivered processes to help guide transparency throughout the community
you proposed dTech, the DAO’s first great success story
I value your pragmatic approach
I value that we have diverse perspectives and different approaches to the ESD role.
I will always return to Gall’s law, thanks to you
I am reliant on you to call me out when I make things too complex
I see you as being well-positioned AA <> AN DAO to progress needed change
I hope you will lead the efforts to build diverse stakeholder representation for decentralised governance
I do not see you as the enemy - @fartunov @daniel-ospina @AlexClay @Shawncubbedge @Blockchainlore @mheuer @b3n @Anthony.Leuts @alibama - more my comrade in arms, because it often feels like a battle.
Also for the record, strategic alignment is something we ask of all proposal authors, the documents @joeycharlesworth supplied were the key source of strategic alignment and his feedback provided me with the most overall support in the authoring of those proposals.
Problem: I value your work within the ESD because I have visibility into your contributions and experience of the time and effort it requires. However, the community does not have that visibility. While I did not raise the question of the value you add I do propose a
Solution:
Problem: I do and will always struggle with anyone that poses problems without a solution.
Solution: can we perhaps agree that in raising problems we also present at least one solution, so that we can focus on the solution vs the problem AND take responsibility for actioning the solutions we suggest
To Alex’s point, the lines are becoming blurred which is a good thing!
Problem: I do not see zero-funding as the right solution for @fartunov @AlexClay @b3n @mheuer @jessicasmith anyone operating across multiple teams. Given we are trying to encourage people to transition toward the DAO from the AA there’s a desperate need to solve the issue of fair contributor rewards. This is certainly not a problem I can solve. I know DAO compensation is something high on @b3n radar I know this is something @daniel-ospina has done a tonne of research and work around too.
Solution: As discussed at this morning’s ESD General Meeting the ESD have agreed to release short term (S1) funding for strategic hires and to secure external expertise. We see @b3n as having the highest context and people expertise to identify the right people for the role(s).
Problem: Opting out of Coordinape circles - so as not to accrue rewards - also disrupts the ability to fairly allocate funding proportionately to the help I receive from all DAO participants. We need people like @Alex @fartunov @mheuer in these circles at times. Zero rewards provide no incentive to participate and help to reward and express gratitude for others.
Question: Where people do not participate, should that funding remain unspent or be divided proportionately to the allocated GIVE?
Solution: the ESD has in past discussed a percentage decrease of around 50% in the DAO awarded funding. In the case of a coordinape circle, this would reduce by 50% the reward allocation with the other 50% divided proportionately to the other participants?
Can we test this idea @AlexClay @fartunov @daniel-ospina both the dGov advisory and ESD circles are on hold awaiting clarification to progress reward allocation.
Thanks for this @lee0007 I am happy to test the proposal and see how we go. I agree it is not efficient to opt out as it will skew the results. Agree on urgently solving the compensation problem and great to hear we are looking for experts on it!
I don’t have anything else to add here other than I have found the Executive SubDAO to be doing a great job and would like to extend gratitude to @fartunov @daniel-ospina and @lee0007 for their efforts, especially given the limited compensation they have received to date, and I feel what is being requested is more than fair all considered.
I believe there is a great and urgent need to work out and clarify compensation and benefits across the DAO as the merge draws near. I understand @b3n is working on this and I look forward to hear more as this process gets underway.
Thanks to @AlexClay @Ricktik6 advice we have provided a standard for coordinape allocation testing which can be found here
For transparency, in light of the Coordinape circle slashing for AA team members I am revoking this statement and will be accepting the ESD fixed pay if the vote passes
