Thank you for your comments fren. Happy that you agree on some points. I am not against funding. I only think that the amount indicated by frog is a bit too high. And I don’t like so much the final consensus mechanism to unblock the super compensation.
Yeah there is a cost with saying no in a system that compensates popularity (we do), so this needs to be super clear on how we and who applies the follow-up. I think this might even be the more critical point in this post. Without this we can lower the BANK/hr amount and still spend the same amount on the same output in a few seasons. Project and fund priority is key!
For the rest I think the renumeration might be structured 100k + bonus but tie that bonus to concrete votes the community have to pass instead of a separate vote for renumeration. We could tie it to progress and not percived work. Just as we want to do with project, output and nothing else should be the key for bonus renumeration, at the end of the season do we have a new renumeration system or not. Doesn’t these types of criterias for a bonus make it more objective?
Great post fren, I would vote for you if you decided to run for a post. Perfect fit!
Doesn’t these types of criterias for a bonus make it more objective?
I agree with this. There is a problem, however. If you reduce the condition to success to a binary choice (yes/no), then how do you distribute bonus (do you?) for partial success? How do you define partial success?
Without a breakdown of deliverables, one could at least do 100/200 based on the two areas assuming its a team job to finish it on time.
But based on the post it vould also be Renumeration: New level systen 25k / Clear compensation 25k / long term comp 25k and a bonus for checking all boxes of 25k. (Not these amounts but you get the point)
Then you do Framework / process and funding for the other area
Thank you frog for this post. The issues raised go to the heart of the challenges facing the DAO.
This is essentially the creation of a business strategy department .
I also agree with Grendel and others comments.
The issue does not seem to be that this is good solution so much as agreement on implementation.
As a person who has had the benefit of a lifetime working in strategy I am advocate of strategic approaches as solutions to organizational problems and my opinion is that with this proposal you have hit the nail on the head.
Strongly agree if I can add a but….I need to read and digest all the comments before sounding too ill informed and advised. Love the good thoughts and wisdom from over 50 voters as well as the proposer. Concerned mostly about short term burn rate vs immediate benefit which may take longer to implement than anyone appreciates.
As usual Grendel you have articulated my major concerns as I indicated Strong support but in my initial comment in reply added my but…also feel some of what Eagle has expressed. Maybe wisdom comes also with age and experience even in new and experimental space. TY as always
I’m in the Agree w/ Light Modifications camp too. To start, I want to call out this proposal is much needed, and feels largely (95%) on target and just needs sifting/refining of the Draft into a v1.0 Plan. Thank you @frogmonkee !
Two broad questions:
Why is this called a Solutions Engineer, specifically?
Without going too in the weeds, what is the practical difference between paying from the Treasury vs through the GC? Assuming this is an area of context that a (very?) material segment of readers may not have.
The two key strategies to this new role being successful are focus and accountability. There is already discussion here about exactly how to structure the role/tasks for accountability, but want to echo that focus needs to be the other central element. Until this role is clarified as being simpler than we’re all thinking (which sounds unlikely), I propose the people filling this role hold no other salaried roles of any kind and keep their eyes on this mission alone. This is a beast of a mission statement for the team, and could easily be near-full-time scope. Limiting focus for GSEs will have a carry-on benefit of keeping other salaried roles open for a wider array of DAO members.
Being able to say no, as an org, is very hard even when the org has existing centralized decision making. Learning to say no when many decisions are governed by the will of the majority will be substantially more-so. The crux is that saying no is the key to having good strategy (being able to stay focused on the real priorities, utilizing resources soundly), so we need to start getting better at this.
Totally agree deliverables or milestones should be broadly mapped out at the start and the evaluated as they are completed by some sub-group (TBD) on quality and timeliness to ensure alignment of interests between GSEs and the DAO, with attached bonus or incremental pay given only if earned.
Agree that more than 3 people may be necessary–suggestions for 4 or 5 will probably be on target, as scoping continues to flesh out details as this becomes a Plan. More clarity on scope needed to confirm.
Related to the previous, I suggest we don’t get wrapped around the axel on compensation until we have scope and team size–we’ll waste a lot of time, and we simply don’t have the clarity to make a sound judgement or have an informed debate yet. Let’s scope this thing to a deeper level, then come back and refine the economic/incentive view.
Largely off-topic, but still important to highlight/echo here:
Do we have any current visibility into roles held by key DAO members (# of roles, # of guilds, # of committed hours/week, monthly/seasonal income, etc)? I share several people’s concern that the current state may far from ideal and potentially much too concentrated around a handful of key members, but I have near-zero data to form a real opinion around, so will keep my initial instinct open to revision if we can get clarity through a clear, consolidated view. Does anything like this currently exist, even partially?
Hugely agree with multiple comments that voting needs a significant process upgrade. Binary votes on major topics that boil the group largely down to a 5-second, one-click “Yes!” “No!” misses most of the value in this kind of democratic system, and will lead us often down the wrong paths, waste time/resources, and make us sloppy. Additionally, there are issues about unsophisticated voters weighing in on topics they may not know about, or not being provided with sufficient context or data to make a sound decision. Voting should only be “easy” if it’s a preference question (“Do you want this POAP in red or blue next time?”) but should have a healthy degree of friction or diligence required for incrementally bigger asks around allocation of DAO resources (time, BANK, otherwise) There’s a big S3+ project here, in itself.
Exciting times, all!
Another great post. Speaks to the great talent we have aggregated amongst us.
I’ve felt this way around a lot of my votes, but was trying to think of a solution. Maybe make it part of the proposal to include informative hyperlinks so people can educate themselves? But will people click those links and truly read them, when there are tons of proposals waiting to be read? I wonder if this is just a symptom of democratic societies.
Learning to say No or Not Yet is a human skill. It is a real skill.
It needs courage. It’s to say No or Not Yet, while remaining in connection with another human being.
It needs trust. It’s to say No or Not Yet, while keeping doors open and hearts warm.
It needs willingness. It’s to say No or Not Yet, while making an effort to offer a contribution to a better solution.
It needs clarity. Saying No or Not Yet means to trade false inclusion for setting healthy boundaries.
Learning to say No or Not Yet is about your inner clarity which enables you to set healthy boundaries.
Because learning to say “no” with empathy and (self-)compassion is what enables healthy, sustainable relationships.
So from what I am seeing and reading and feeling is, that the common denominator of both issues outlined here, contributor retention and strategic prioritization, is learning to say No or Not Yet.
Please take into consideration that the soon to be worked-on evolutionary framework will have to cover 4 dimensions:
1/ Governmental Practises as outlined in the original post that enables the healthy emergence of conflict while prioritizing strategically
2/ Self-Leadership which enables personal growth as adults: learn to say No or Not Yet with inner clarity, empathy and compassion
3/ A culture and feedback loops within the whole system to check on sustainable healthy growth and retention
4/ Organizational structures that enable decentralized organizational learning
It’s a tough problem. I think many people conflate decentralization with democracy (i.e. the more voting we have, the more decentralized we are). I disagree. I think decentralization is more about pushing decisions to to the places that are best suited to make them. It’s about empowering contributors but also empowering our teams to move without having to seek approval on every decision from people who don’t (and likely can’t) understand the context.
So in the case of figuring out how to say NO at a strategic level - we can vote on the approach rather than the individual cases. Instead of voting on individual decisions, you vote on a framework to make those decisions, and on the people you trust to best execute that framework (taking liberty when needed).
At the end of the day, you want the best decisions to be made, and typically that means empowering the people who know what they’re doing to make the decisions.
Hello, I thought about my answer the other day. While I am in the group of not educated people (yet) I don’t think the first level of voting should be concerning, as there can be filter before and after related to groups proposing voting - especially if everybody tends to vote ‘yes’, the concern should be in designing optimal, simple proposals. If the present proposal will be confirmed, the GSE will be one of these group certainly.
I’d add to my previous answer this: I think the EGS should work with the devs, as many incentives to collaboration can be thought along with the protocol.
Well thought out: purpose of this, scope of work, job description, need for financial incentives above and beyond normal bdao compensation.
Needs more thought: the compensation seems low for the responsibility of this position. 100,000 BANK is roughly US$13,500 today, so for a season of work that’s about $4,500 per month or US$54,000 annualized. That is a pretty average US salary for someone in their 20s. This position requires someone with A+ organizational management experience, thoughtfulness, communication and analytical skills.
The bdao comp working group forum post that you reference states that bdao compensation should be higher than real world due to the increased risks. To me, the risks here include BANK value decreasing, regulatory risk, and most importantly the risk that the SE would have to give up everything else they’re working on for 3 months in order to devote themselves to this.
The opportunity cost to be an SE is likely a lot more than 100,000. Someone with SE talent could get a top job in any DAO or web3 company. They have high real world demand for their skills as well. US$4,500 is likely closer to what they earn in a week than in a month. If you want A+ talent to commit themselves completely to the SE role, 100,000 BANK over 3 months is not going to get you very far.
Would your opinion change if this was a part-time role? That’s the vibe I got from the post but I don’t know if it’s explicitly stated
Yes, I would feel differently if this was a part-time job. I didn’t read this as a part-time role though. I read this as something more than even a standard full-time job. I’m reading it as more than 40 hours/week. bDAO guilds are moving 24/7 in time zones all over the world so I can’t see how you would be an effective SE unless you’re willing to pour yourself into this job inside and outside of normal business hours. And the part about restricting the SE’s ability to work in other guilds or on more than one other project.
The part about not holding more than one other role while still being able to contribute to lower-order work is why I got the impression it was part-time.
I don’t see any reason someone couldn’t be a global solutions engineer while working less than 40 hours a week. I’d go as far to argue that if they can’t do that, they might not be best fit for the role, considering they’ll be working on contributor retention and burnout is a big driver of attrition. If they can’t balance their own work, can we trust them to balance the work of everyone else in the DAO?
Less Governors, More Education. The understanding it takes to tackle your obvious concerns should be broad knowledge that all members should have or at least be able to begin learning. This proposal i feel is an example of how old thinking is still being used in the dao with it’s effect creating silos and alienation of members. We already have more Roles Being Proposed in the DAO than we have qualified members for.
personally Frog I would prefer you do more education and write less proposals.
To the extent the Knowledge and Experience needed to resolve these issues is broad knowledge across the dao there will be no need for more centralized structures.