Thanks Todd! A great read, this is a meticulously detailed and transparent document. My concern with this, is the actionable missing where there needs to be a complete overhaul of minute admin considerations like Discord roles, access to docs etc to current contributors.
Also, I’m also a little confused as to where someone like myself would end up in terms of compensation. I’ve been involved in co-organising/hosting a DeSci Singapore event for the DAO, ops task management, governance/policy contribution and now a project management lead. It’s a little unclear which bracket (or can it be multiple?) I would end up in from the appendices. Would someone like myself be a squad lead?
With the introduction of Harvest, will I only be able to declare the hours for projects I am assigned to? In my example above, I’m only allowed to track hours on Harvest for my project lead assignment but am using Google Sheets for the rest. Also, will payouts still be distributed on the 1st & 15th of every month?
Personally, I’ve had the time to commit full/part-time to VitaDAO but have always held back my declared hours due to the guilty sentiment of leaving enough resources to fund early-stage longevity research. This proposal definitely lifts that lid, motivates, and incentivises me further to put in more time while still upholding my passion for VitaDAO’s vision/mission.
I’m excited to continue helping you as a vital part of the Coordination WG to implement and iron these out for the betterment of VitaDAO .
@consigli3re to your point, there are a number of actionable items that will flow from this proposal and other proposals that are now being presented. Discord/Discourse restructuring, and document management are definitely amongst them.
As a working group member in one or more working groups, you are entitled to compensation/rewards based on all of those efforts, provided they are in-line with the working groups goals. A Core Contributor is typically someone who is putting in consistent time into VitaDAO based on their skill set, and Squad Leads tend to be Core Contributors working on one area or set of projects. In your case, you are definitely falling into the Core Contributor category under governance.
With reference to Harvest (our time and expense tracking system) - I can work with you offline to make sure you have access to other common tasks that you need to track against. But as a general observation, all of your time should be allocated to a specific strategic project(s) you are contributing to, or to one of the select number of general tasks (Governance development for example) that you are part of as part of a squad.
@consigli3re, received some comments from @Alex and @longevion which are being integrated into a next draft version to provide some clarifications. Hope to have the updates early next week.
Based on feedback from members the following represents revised text for the compensation policy (Version 2):
Please note this also incorporates a revised L-TIP model (Appendix E). Many thanks to @Alex for working through this with me to bring in L1D’s perspective from their experience with other projects.
@Max_Unfried On your comment about a clause for inflation: it is not included in this version but we can either add it, or put a statement that the rates will be subject to an annual review which I think will be probably a more likely scenario. Thoughts?
agree on annual review… some tasks and compensations might also outpace inflation (such as smart contract review) while others might lag behind and become cheaper with automation etc
On the policy doc, I see there weren’t changes since our last workshop, only noticed that appendixes still say “core contributor” (we had changed to “top contributor” to avoid confusion with VitaCORE).
On the L-TIP appendix, I’ve added some suggestions regarding the tokenomics review, for ramping up top contributor numbers and % FTE over 4 years instead of assuming we ramp instantly year 1 and keep linear over 4 years, and for budgeting L-TIP for more contributors. See comments and suggestions here:
Lastly, I think in the end we should upload to IPFS before onchain vote, so it’s immutable and preserved
I appreciate the use of web3 tech, but wouldn’t github or gitbook work better for this?
With IPFS, I think it is possible to cease storing the content, you just can’t replace it with the same CID. I think Arweave is the ‘pay for 200 years of storage’.
I’d suggest we have an additional Appendix for hourly rates for Longevity WG roles too. Seems odd to have hourly rates for all other positions from other WGs but leave Longevity WG without it or is there a specific reason for this?
The original version had a link to VDP 26.1 which is the compensation model for Longevity WG, but @longevion felt it could be simplified, so maybe he can explain.
.