GMC Updates - Proposal

Governance
1

The GMC has drafted a new RPIP to supersede RPIP-26.

They propose revising the conflict of interest section to allow GMC members to participate in grants that have not been identified as competing grants, making an adjustment to the application deadline within the schedule, restoring the ‘Selection and Governance’ section that was incorrectly removed in RPIP-26, and adding additional clarify on GMC members participating in bounties.

–

Abstract

A) Conflicts Of Interest
Revise the conflict of interest section to allow GMC members to participate in grants that have not been identified as competing grants. Add additional clarify on GMC members participating in bounties.

B) Schedule Adjustment
Make an adjustment to the application deadline within the schedule.

C) Restore Missing Section
Restore the ‘Selection and Governance’ section that was incorrectly removed in RPIP-26.

–

Motivation

A) Conflicts Of Interest
The conflict of interests section does not allow grant applicants to fulfill their regular duties, and it has been a recurring issue for the GMC.

This was discussed back in June (link), and one of the opposing arguments was that it does not happen enough to warrant changing. Unfortunately, this is still a recurring problem.

In round 9, there were four conflicts of interest:

  • ShfRyn (POAPs)
  • Ken (Denver Lift-Off)
  • Waq (The Weekly Orbit)
  • Dr Doofus (The Merchandise Store)

The situation was compounded by Joe taking paternity leave, leading to a decrease in staffing across various departments: development lost one member, research lost one member, and marketing lost two members.

Consequently, subcommittees ceased functioning, placing additional burdens on members who now had to review nearly three times the usual number of applications. Furthermore, arranging calls and discussions became significantly more challenging due to the traditional three members to an application becoming six to nine members.

While this rule remains intact, the GMC will continually hit these periods where they are forced to emergency shuffle resources and potentially have a less informed / effective decision process as a result.

Bounty Clarity: As the GMC has increased its facilitation of bounties, it has recognized the necessity for greater clarity regarding the bounty process. This clarity aims to mitigate potential conflicts of interest among GMC members who are interested in participating in bounty completion.

B) Schedule Adjustment
Currently, the GMC has between 16 (sixteen) days or 9 (nine) days to research, engage in meetings, negotiate, and deliberate on applications. There has been a strong consensus that 16 days is much more of an optimal timeline.

C) Restore Missing Section
Adding this section back corrects minor errors that happened during the last RPIP writing process where content was not properly migrated.

–

Specification

A) Conflicts Of Interest
Revise:

Any GMC member who submits a grant application SHALL abstain from scoring, voting on, or participating in GMC discussions about any grants during the application period for which they are an applicant. They may participate in the ratifying snapshot vote. They may also score, vote, and participate in discussions in future rounds during which their grant is ongoing, provided they have not submitted an application during that round for any new grants.

to:

Any GMC member who submits a grant application SHALL abstain from scoring, voting on, or participating in GMC discussions about any competing grants during the application period for which they are an applicant. ANY committee member or the GMC administrator may identify a grant as a competing grant. In such cases, committee members who have submitted a grant application for that period cannot vote or discuss that application. They may participate in the ratifying snapshot vote. They may also score, vote, and participate in discussions in future rounds during which their grant is ongoing, provided they have not submitted an application during that round for any new grants.

For bounty clarity add to the end of the ‘Conflicts Of Interest’ section:

If a GMC member plans to complete a bounty, that SHALL be communicated to the GMC as early in the process as possible.

B) Schedule Adjustment
Revise:

Submissions received before the second Sunday of the month will be reviewed that month; if received after that, they will be queued for next month.

to:

Submissions received before the 7th of the month will be reviewed that month; if received after that, they will be queued for next month.

C) Restore Missing Section
Add the following below the current Conflicts of Interest section:

Selection and Governance

In addition to the “Management Committee Governance” and “Management Committee Selection” sections of RPIP-10, the GMC will abide by the following:

  • The GMC SHALL contain nine individuals, except in cases of vacancies.
  • Upon approval of this RPIP, immediate elections following the guidelines of RPIP-10 SHALL take place for any new or vacant seats. These elections SHALL supercede the rules for filling vacancies in the previous bullet.

–

Rationale

A) Conflicts Of Interest
Other committee members can now label or identify competing grants. This allows any one of the 8 other GMC members or the administrator to act as a safeguard in the possibility of conflicts of interest. The original rule where they cannot vote on their own grant(s) are still intact.

Additional reasons why the current rule lacks effectiveness include:

  • There are currently no funding or allocation limits in place. For instance, if John blocks applicant A, it does not necessarily free up funding for John’s own applications or initiatives.
  • Discouraging community members from serving as GMC members does not align with the committee’s goals. Those with conflicts of interest in round 9 bring invaluable insights to the committee, and losing them would significantly impact its effectiveness. Moreover, GMC member recruitment is notoriously challenging. Despite concerted efforts, including my own outreach and Valdorff’s recruitment activities, currently we only have one backup left with approximately nine months remaining in this term. Given that the applications in question relate to crucial products, losing either these members or their associated applications would be highly undesirable.

B) Schedule Adjustment
The GMC can still facilitate the same amount of applications but spend more time discussing and negotiating each one.

C) Restore Missing Section
This restores data that should have never been removed.

–

  • I support moving to a PDAO vote.
  • I do not support moving to a PDAO vote.
0 voters
2 Likes
2

I strongly support this. It will make the GMC much more effective.

2 Likes
3

I know we’ve discussed this on and off @ShfRyn. Rather than writing the RPIP one way or another, is it possible to add a conditional to this? Something along the lines of:

“If there are limitations on funding they must not take part in votes in the same cycle, otherwise they must only not vote on grants that are identified as competing.”

Or even just:

“In an environment where funds are judged to be limited, the GMC Administrator must identify all grants, retros and bounties as competing.”

My goal here is to avoid:

  • Potential contention in the future if the situation changes and this rule doesn’t.
  • A future edit that would require another pDAO vote.

When these can reasonably be dealt with now by adding a small amount of additional complexity.

1 Like
4

Yes, I think this is ideal for future-proofing. I’ve changed that passage to:

Any GMC member who submits a grant application SHALL abstain from scoring, voting on, or participating in GMC discussions about any competing grants during the application period for which they are an applicant. ANY committee member or the GMC administrator may identify a grant as a competing grant. In an environment where funds are judged to be limited, the GMC Administrator MUST identify all grants, retros and bounties as competing. If a grant is identified as competing, committee members who have submitted a grant application for that period cannot vote or discuss that application. They may participate in the ratifying snapshot vote. They may also score, vote, and participate in discussions in future rounds during which their grant is ongoing, provided they have not submitted an application during that round for any new grants.

3 Likes
5

I’m voting for, I don’t see any real conflicts of interest arising from these changes, and the GMC wants it.