P.S. Based on the first two months, does it make sense to switch to a per-case payment as you have suggested @mheuer
P.S. Based on the first two months, does it make sense to switch to a per-case payment as you have suggested @mheuer
GravityDAO have come to us and asked to adjust their per case fee to account for additional costs for more complicated cases, which were not considered in their original proposal. The original agreement included a flat fee of $1,000 per month to cover any incoming cases, and may have underestimated resources needed for certain cases. At the end of the first month, seeing there was only one case being worked on, @mheuer and @JuankBell felt if best to move to a per case structure. However, that case is ongoing, involving many more people and GravityDAO resources. Thus, we have requested a detailed breakdown of what their new fee structure will be and specifics on extra charges for, and definitions of what constitutes a complicated cases.
We hope to clarify this in this months report.
Thank you - I very much appreciate the update!
I understand there might be a need to maintain privacy for those involved, however for the ESD and the community at large to be able to assess the relative utility of conflict resolution some insights would be very valuable:
As a potentially very valuable output of the work of the Umbrella initiative, it would be extremely useful to have a framework around how much resources (time, human and financial capital) are worth investing in resolving a conflict.
Apologies ESD Team for not using the required end of season report template in the original posting. We are amending and will post in the correct format at the earliest.
Thanks for your understanding.
Outstanding, pending Gravity deliverables and ESD Approval:
Deliverables Not Executed
Funding Request Total ($2,480 + Gravity Payment TBD)
Conflict Management Venn Diagram:
Could you please clarify the reason for increasing the price per case. If I understand correctly, this is a request to amend the initial contract?
So I understand the original 6k for organisational policy is cancelled, correct?
Beyond end of season is not the right time to request a new deliverable and new costing.
The outsourcing of this service to Gravity amounts to consultancy from my pov and for me, recommendations are inherent in consultancy reporting.100% thought a report from Gravity would have been here by end of the season. Gravity is funded via ESD and they are equally responsible for reporting on their funded work @JuankBell
What exactly does $1500 cover, if not a report?
You guys have support within the ESD to continue conflict resolution services. However, between umbrella and gravity, you guys need to figure out the service pricing model here and ensure that reporting is accounted for.
To me it would have been better to retain the $1000 per month model and if this had been discussed with the ESD, that would have been my advice. So I’m happy to consider releasing up to $3000 [TBD] in total for conflict services S1,
1/3 approved funding for core contributors cc @Ricktik6
Personally, I’m confused and would appreciate a format that basically went:
Item 1 → compensation for 1
Item 2 → compensation for 2
and then Total
At this point, I can’t understand what was delivered and how much is the compensation expected, other than seeing a number of hours but an unclear link to the value delivered (not saying there isn’t one, I just can’t see it between all the notes on what was promised, what is no longer being done, etc).
I believe we are the first DAO outside of the TEC that GravityDAO has provided this service for. Therefore, when they priced up this service I do not believe they fully understood the resources certain cases would require, and are now iterating their pricing structure.
We have been explicit with GravityDAO that a report and recommendations would be required, both for the current case in mediation and for the consultancy work they have requested payment for, before any funds would be released. The first draft of their repot did contain a pricing model but it requires further clarification, which we hope will be forthcoming this week.
This would have been our preferred approach also, however, the decision to change the pricing model had been taken before we joined the team. Though we believe a requested change in the pricing model would have been inevitable.
We are learning much from working with GravityDAO, and hope we can continue the relationship into S02. However, we will also be looking at other conflict mediation service provider options, and we will include a recommendation of what we feel will bring the most value to the Umbrella Team and AragonDAO moving forward.
Hi @daniel-ospina ,
Sorry if there is confusion as to the compensation expected versus what has been delivered. Right now, the only original deliverable that has been cancelled is the organizational policies design.
The Gravity mediation service and Gravity consultation services have been carried out and will be completed deliverables once reports for both are forthcoming.
The following deliverables are completed:
The following deliverables are ongoing:
It would be very difficult assigning specific compensation for the 2 paid contributors for each of these deliverables, as we have not been recording our hours specific to deliverables, but rather the project as a whole.
I hope this is of some help to you, and we are happy to clarify further if necessary.
thank you for clarifying
2/3 approved funding contributors
As a recommendation @fmurphy, I see a lot of meetings and preparatory work that has yet to surface. So I hope we can see a significant portion of this translate into workshops, events, and generally impact over the coming cycle.
I recall being very excited when this proposal was created, requesting funding. The scope was straight-forward and actionable.
The deliverables/objectives were:
Fund mediation-as-a-service for 3 months while preparing the DAO to take-over this service internally through 5 interactive training sessions, elaborate on our org policy regarding mediation, and kick-start the umbrella team (2 members with part-time work for a “Few hours a week or via bounties”).
The work with the community would be monthly and over different time zones as indicated in the original proposal.
From my understanding the point was to have an in-house mediation team that has some training in this field and could be called upon in times of need (like an ombudsman to some degree) until that time have some pro’s from Gravity lead for 3 months. AND to have an updated policy with a report.
Is there a particular reason why this scope has increased, why we are still hosting campfires until Aug 19th and cross-guild culture meetings? Furthermore why a few hours a week has turned into someone working 20hours per week and 3 core members?
Unless I am missing something I believe we should not be ballooning this further, but consolidating smaller around the core deliverables originally promised in the time frame originally presented. We should not be paying for anything else beyond that or having the program grow further beyond that.
Sorry if i’m missing something and apologies for being forward.
Hi @Anthony.Leuts ,
Thank you for your reply and happy to try explain answer as clearly possible. Firstly, the scope of the team has not expanded much at all, though the reporting may give that impression. The Conflict Mediation trainings started later that expected and they are running until the 19th August (every 2 weeks), and the week in-between we are running a campfire to discuss the previous workshops learnings with the idea of knowledge and skill retention. The cross-guild culture meetings were initiated by Max with support from the Umbrella team.
There was a plan to expand the team in the original proposal which was not specific in terms of hours needed. Since the current 3 core members have joined the team, more coordination with GravityDAO has been needed than was perhaps originally expected. We are their first outside consultation client and their own processes are in development, thus requiring more time from Umbrella.
Finally, as per the original proposal, the focus moving towards our Season 2 proposal, the core focus will remain on conflict resolution, and the development of a small team within Umbrella to be able to manage conflict internally. This will require much more external support (GravityDAO) alongside Umbrella contributors to make this a reality.
I hope this answers your query, but please let me know if you have further questions.
Hey just to clarify, mapping against the original budget:
12,000 USDC towards Gravity. 6000 USDC was towards the creation of organisational policies. As this deliverable has been dropped this budget is no longer part of the proposal
3,000 USDC for 5 sessions (2 time-slots to accomodate different time zones) - in progress unaltered
3,000 USDC for 3 months of mediation services → there are some changes, but it is unclear what those are. By the looks of it we are going to pay USDC 1,500 for one mediation case. Assuming no other mediation cases emerge by the end of the season USDC 1,500 will remain unspent. is that understanding correct?
4,500 USD equivalent in ANT for contributors. Please note that as the currency of payment was explicitly specified in the original proposal the 90/10 split does not apply here (something we as the ESD failed to recognize in approving the May payment).
Please keep in mind there is $140 left for contributions towards the initiative for July and whatever additional work is remaining to assist Gravity DAO to ship the deliverables from their side (apparently extending into August).
I agree with the concerns raised by @Anthony.Leuts about headcount and scope bloating.
What is the deliverable output of those meetings?
I don’t understand what is this? Where is the $3,000 USDC coming from
Overall I would recommend the team to be very deliberate in defining the scope and activities to be shipped in S2 if there is an intention to request further funding. I believe in incentivising productive work, here it seems the team itself struggles to define what productive work means, let alone align with other stakeholders
To be clear, the issues that are causing confusion, including the change from a fixed fee to a per case basis and cancelling the organization policies, were not decisions the current 3 core contributors, were a part of, nor did we have any input. Thus it has been challenging to clearly report on such decisions.
The context I do have is that, by the end of April, given that there was only 1 case referred to GravityDAO, it was agreed to move to a per case basis at $800 per case. GravityDAO reported to us last month that the complexity of the case and manpower hours required meant they needed to charge $1,500. There have been no further cases referred to GravityDAO that we have been informed of, thus the $1,500 balance will go unspent.
I will advise @Incandenza of the change in payment from USDC to ANT.
Regarding the deliverable output of our meetings, a portion of these meetings were focused on preparing for the currently running conflict mediation workshops and campfires, planning the hosted open space, culture design work and planning the development of an internal conflict mediation team. Unfortunately, much time has been spent over the last few weeks going back and forth with GravityDAO over deliverables.
This leads to the $3,000 USDC request. With the cancellation of the organizational policies document, there was no communication between Umbrella and GravityDAO how this would effect the previously agreed upon $6,000. This lack of clarification left GravityDAO still believing they would be paid for “Consultation work”, covering the hours they have invested attending Umbrella meetings and offering their advise where needed. Thus when they requested $3,000, we suggested providing a document listing the conflict management tools they have provided us to-date, a clear price list for the mediation of cases for Aragon, along with their recommendations on setting up our own conflict resolution team. This document should be finished and posted here within a day or so.
It is also important to consider why and when it was dropped. It was dropped after we had clarity around the placeholder proposal. On the 1st of June, I notified @JuankBell (in a personal message during the Croatia offsite) that organizational policy work makes no sense in the context of our entire organization being restructured in the next months.
Despite deliverables not being defined, preparational work and planning in expectation of delivering the service might have arisen on the GravityDAO side, that GravityDAO will outline in their report.
For example, and as mentioned by @fmurphy, I met with @JuankBell and Jeremy in Amsterdam and in a few initial calls, which was consultancy work.
On the advice of GravityDAO, we decided to delay the organizational policies after the Umbrella workshops, hoping that awareness is created and that we find good contributors in the meantime (which certainly has happened). I have to admit that it was not clear to me, that unspent budget will vanish after the end of the season and guidelines for paying external service providers weren’t existing.
I am sorry for the inconveniences this first DAO2DAO collaboration has created on both sides.
I hope that we can find a good solution and maintain a good relationship to the TEC community.
I agree that this should be accounted for in the final payment given Gravity DAO were 2/3 months into work around the organisational policy before they were advised of a change. I would support some portion of the 6k secured for organisational policy.
To update my position I’m happy to consider releasing up to $3000 in total for conflict services S1 AND some portion of the 6k for work on organisational policies
For me managing this relationship is the priority and should be done in a fair and transparent way. If it is our fault for this then it should be taken into account.
I standby my statements above even more so about headcount and scope bloat, especially now that Michael is also involved in relationship management.