GMC Update - June 2023

Grants / Bounties
1

Hey Rocket Poolers!

As we approach the next awards period, I would like to provide you all with a quick update on the GMC.

Let’s start with some individual applicant updates:

  • Valdorff: The GMC granted partial funding for the governance work applications submitted by Calurduran. After careful consideration, the GMC has recognized the significant contributions of Valdorff and governance work in general. To rectify the disparity in the awarded amount, the administrator will be submitting a retrospective application.

  • DrDoofus: In the first round, DrDoofus’s application was denied. However, upon further deliberation, the GMC wholeheartedly welcomes him to resubmit his application during the next round.

  • Jasper and Ken: Both individuals have been requested to submit separate applications for their work in Twitter Spaces. We have noticed some discrepancies in the valuation of work between Twitter Spaces and Rocket Fuel. We intend to address these concerns during the upcoming awards announcement.

  • Ramana: Ramana presented several project ideas, and although the previous awards setup didn’t allow us to fully nurture these applications, we are pleased to see that Ramana has made significant progress with some of his projects.

  • invis: We have heard feedback from the community that invis was not adequately compensated for their work on Rocket Watch. We extend an invitation to invis to submit an application providing more detail and data on what they believe would be a reasonable amount.

Now, let’s discuss some updates on GMC governance:

  • Retrospective Award Cap: We are proposing the elimination of the retrospective award cap, as we envision a new and improved awards process that will not only fulfill the intended utility of the retrospective award cap but also enhance it for future-forward awards.
  • New Award Cycle: Going forward, we propose the award cycle will take place monthly, allowing sufficient time for negotiation and enabling applicants to submit their applications at any time.
  • GMC Admin’s Role: We are working on clearly defining the role of the GMC admin, along with their responsibilities. An RPIP will establish guidelines for maintaining and transitioning this role effectively.

While I cannot provide an exact timeline for implementation, I want to assure you that we have made significant progress. If all goes as planned, this will be the last awards cycle with the current format.

Thanks all - and don’t forget to get those applications ready!

3 Likes
2

To rectify the disparity in the awarded amount, the GMC will be submitting a retrospective application.

What does this process look like? I worry a little bit about the precedent set by the GMC creating and approving its own applications. Can a single member of the GMC be responsible for writing the application, and abstain from voting on it, at least?

We extend an invitation to invis to submit an application providing more detail and data on what they believe would be a reasonable amount.

I volunteered to do this on his behalf- is there a preference from the GMC that he take the reins?

Thanks for the update!

1 Like
3

I have revised that sentence for clarity. The administrator will be submitting an application, but it’s important to note that the administrator does not possess any voting power. Theoretically, the GMC could outright deny it as nothing is official yet, but this was more to signal current intentions. If we’re worried about this being a precedence issue, the GMC could ask the person to resubmit themselves. I don’t expect the typical process to be the GMC resubmitting for the applicant, but I saw in this case an opportunity for the GMC to make a statement about valuing governance work which has been a recurring topic in the community.

I volunteered to do this on his behalf- is there a preference from the GMC that he take the reins?

No preference, the details and context in the application are the most important.

4

This seems safe and fair, thanks