You may also ask questions of nominees - I suggest doing that in this thread so others can benefit from the discussion
Per RPIP-10:
Voters MAY split their vote however they wish. If the voter has no specific split they wish to follow, it is RECOMMENDED that they evenly split their weight among their top N candidates, where N is the desired number of of members on the committee.
For full voting process, see the “Management Committee Selection” section of RPIP-10.
@Dondochaka hinted at past experience on a similar committee, but didn’t describe what they regularly did there (eg, are they the cat herder or the cat or somewhere in between)
@Wander talked frankly about being time constrained and willing to step down if that became an issue (ie, may not be a cat herder, but won’t let themselves be a cat for long)
Several talked about their passion for and/or time spent on RP, which might translate
(note - I don’t think every member needs to be up for herding cats, but I think 3 would be a nice number and 1 would be crushing for that person)
I’m definitely willing to spend time assisting with this, although I would likely function better to take some load of off calurduran or another than to be the primary organizer
1- Should IMC and GMC members receive grants for their work? (forum discussion)
2- Is NOA work out of scope?
3- What percentage of the reserve funds (those accumulated in previous inflation periods) should be spent on retroactive rewards?
4- Between new website or better documentation, which one should receive a higher budget %?
5- Should every rocket scientist receive the same grant amount?
There’s a weird sort of game theoretic exercise going on here, where I’m debating whether answering these questions would actually help my candidacy or not (since I doubt very much that everyone is going to answer them). But hey, I’m bored and this is better than grading, so screw self-interest, let’s turn off some voters!
Should IMC and GMC members receive grants for their work?
I already commented on this in that thread, but I don’t think it should be automatic. I think if someone distinguishes themselves in their contributions in that role then someone else on the committee could nominate them for a retrospective award.
Is NOA work out of scope?
Interesting question. For me it depends on what the specific project being applied for is and how much the project would be helpful/applicable to members of the RP community outside of NOA. In other words if it’s something that would be helpful to NOA but also helpful to non-NOA node operators, then that makes sense to me as something we might fund. If it is designing the NOA website or something, then I’d lean no.
What percentage of the reserve funds (those accumulated in previous inflation periods) should be spent on retroactive rewards?
I think this goes along with my general platform of leaning away from spending a lot on retro. awards. I’d prefer to spend as much as possible on grants/bounties to drive protocol growth over the next 12 months, with some small amount given to retro. awards over that period. I’d particularly like to see that as I think what people really care about with any of these awards is the USD value, therefore driving more growth and more value to RPL means our limited funds will go further in giving retro. awards once the great liquid staking wars have reached an equilibrium.
Between new website or better documentation, which one should receive a higher budget %?
These types of questions are really hard to answer in a vacuum. I’d really want to see details on what the scope of the project was, what the background and qualifications of the applicant were, and how much they thought was necessary to complete the project. They are both clearly things we need help with.
Should every rocket scientist receive the same grant amount?
Maybe this is the wrong answer, but I wasn’t aware that rocket scientists were automatically receiving grants, so I guess this is all news to me If that is true, then I wouldn’t think they’d automatically get the same amount. The decision to award the Rocket Scientist role was made by the team. I have great respect for the team, but I don’t think we want to be in the habit of short circuiting governance (in this case the GMC) in such a way.
1- I am supportive of people doing work for the protocol being paid by the protocol, so yes I am generally supportive of some level of pay, whether that is a stipend decided by the pDAO or a grant voted in by the GMC remains to be determined (though there seems to be some clear bias so I’m in favor of this being a protocol decision). In the forum discussion on this, some good points were brought up that not all members contribute the same amount. If we were to pay the IMC/GMC, I would support specifically compensating the treasurer and perhaps high effort members, especially at the beginning. Would I still serve on the GMC without any reward? Yes, I would.
2- if the dev team/protocol incorporates NOA research to better help Rocket Pool work with Saas providers, I would say yes, NOA would be eligible for grants/bounties specifically when improving the base protocol, but in most circumstances likely not.
3- I agree with calurduran’s 50% max on retroactive rewards, to avoid spending our entire budget for the foreseeable future compensating prior contributors without working toward anything now, but I am acutely aware of the huge amount of time and effort spent by community members so far, which is a big part of the reason I’m interested in being on this committee, to give back to people far more talented than myself. I would plan to max out that amount for retroactive rewards, at least initially, to make sure the people who have committed so much of their time don’t get left behind, but also try to reasonably fund current and future objectives for the protocol.
4- This is a difficult question, but I would still consider the official website to be the responsibility of the team, and we should still pressure them to add some quality of life improvements. Keeping the docs up to date is an ongoing process that can hinder NO onboarding or cause more time in support with node issues, hurting protocol APR, more so than the website can hinder rETH adoption, so I would rate that as a higher impact, considering that the IMC and secondary markets seem to be able to drive rETH fairly well, especially once we get key integrations. Both are important, and I don’t see why both can’t be funded, but docs have a higher impact currently imo. This all depends on what the specific funding was to be used for and other factors, such as time, cost, etc., so I can’t give a real answer currently anyway
5- absolutely not, although some of the rocket scientists do put in work that I believe would make them eligible for grants
Just to clarify, the 50% max is enshrined in RPIP-15 (“In any given award period, no more than 50% of the awarded RPL SHALL go to retroactive awards.”). I’m advocating for a lower amount than that, at least in the early periods. I’d love to see the committee have a priority list that comes from retro. award nominations so that community members who have made all of these incredible contributions can rest assured that they are very likely to get a retro. award at some point for it, while focusing the immediate awards on more prospective work.
I’m also not set on maxing our funds out completely, it depends on how many applications we get in general, I just would like to see an aggressive stance on paying people that have put in years of work, and if it doesn’t happen right away, at least people knowing that it WILL happen. Your priority list idea sounds good to me. I agree with your forward thinking and definitely support getting new projects funded but people are actively maintaining useful tools for the protocol, currently for free, and I feel like we shouldn’t just run on goodwill either.
Should IMC and GMC members receive grants for their work?
I believe that members of the IMC and GMC should be eligible for nomination as a grantee and as an applicant on a bounty proposal. However, they would need to recuse themselves from discussion and voting when an item arises that they have a conflict of interest. For example, if the GMC discussed retroactive awards for a discord bot and one bot was named in particular, then anyone afflicted with that bot would need to recuse themselves from that discussion and vote.
Is NOA work out of scope?
I think there would have to be a clear benefit of any project to RP in order for the GMC to fund or support the project. I would opine that it is not out of scope but that NOA does not, in and of itself, justify RP alignment.
What percentage of the reserve funds (those accumulated in previous inflation periods) should be spent on retroactive rewards?
This is a difficult question to answer without a collective deliberation of the committee. I believe the majority of accumulated funds should be held both as a reserve and for funding major efforts needed to grow RP. That said, several already established projects deserve retroactive funding. Especially if the developers are willing to open source the code so that the tools can be maintained, forked, enhanced, etc., by the community
Between a new website or better documentation, which one should receive a higher budget %?
New website - I base that on the fact that just about everyone wants some change to the website and that the documentation, by any standard, is excellent. I firmly believe that Joe, as talented as he is, should not be doing the documentation anymore as his skills are needed elsewhere. By supporting documentation, the GMC can provide some relief in this matter.
Should every rocket scientist receive the same grant amount?
No - Several individuals were given the Rocket Scientists role but are no longer active contributors in the main channels (e.g., general, support, governance, research, etc.).
Should IMC and GMC members receive grants for their work?
Retroactively, yes, when community votes support it.
Ideally grants are not a primary motivating factor for committee members and therefore awarding them should be done in an indirect manner, e.g. only after long periods of time, after demonstrable success, and in relatively modest amounts.
Is NOA work out of scope?
By default, yes.
If there is a direct and tangible benefit to Rocket Pool, especially when a NOA feature is specifically requested by the Rocket Pool community, some NOA work could certainly be fair game.
What percentage of the reserve funds (those accumulated in previous inflation periods) should be spent on retroactive rewards?
A minority.
Ideally the committee would investigate this question and draft a proposal that the community could offer feedback on. In general, I would aim to define a model that quantifies the value of the current budget over time, given assumptions about our target growth rate, how much work has been contributed to date, and so on.
Between new website or better documentation, which one should receive a higher budget %?
Documentation and like content.
I strongly believe we need more supplementary documentation to be competitive. A lot of solo stakers only exist today because of “for-dummies”-style docs, YouTube videos, etc. that hold your hand through installing on a specific operating system, for example. The official documentation is fantastic, but if it’s all we have, we will lose a significant number of potential users.
Should every rocket scientist receive the same grant amount?
No.
Grants should be awarded based on contributions, not titles.
A GMC member left soon after the end of the vote. There’s a discussion to simply add the next highest vote getter rather than initiate a new vote to fill the missing slot.
If that is true, then I wouldn’t think they’d automatically get the same amount. The decision to award the Rocket Scientist role was made by the team. I have great respect for the team, but I don’t think we want to be in the habit of short circuiting governance (in this case the GMC) in such a way.