Some disconnected thoughts
Poll design really benefits from experience and knowledge of common pitfalls. Not intending to call out ShfRyn specifically here, because I’ve seen this a number of times looking back through forum polls here, and it used to happen all the time at Maker as well. I think humans naturally do this badly. In general:
- The goal of a poll is to get an unambiguous + precise signal with least cost to voters.
- Yes / No with riders creates ambiguity around results (in this case, I can’t signal no without also signalling I think this is a political nightmare. I can’t signal yes without expressing an opinion on a dollar amount).
- Imprecise is usually preferable to ambiguous. (So simple Yes/No with no riders.)
- Multiple short polls can be a better option, providing high-level imprecise input, then gathering a more precise signal with a larger range of options. But does incur a higher cost to voters. Example Link
The possibility of an issue being a political nightmare cannot be an automatic stop-sign that prevents a decision being made. Ultimately, some decisions will not be easy, but still need to be made for the community / daos / project to move forward.
Feels like there is room for imagination here. A stipend is perhaps the simplest method, but may not be the most effective. There may be some hybrid method that gives a better trade-off between (for lack of a better term) volunteer spirit and consistent effort.
Stipend after a few months active work on the committee might be an option. In this way there is still a bias toward volunteers (unpaid for first few months), but as the lustre and feel-goods of doing something nice wear off, and the reality of the role being a job kicks in, so does a stipend.
If IMC and pDAO treasurer are included, RPIP editors should also be included. To be honest, RPIP Editors should potentially also be a committee, and be given a wider role in governance operations.
The non-financial incentives for being on this committee are pretty negative over the long term. There is a high chance of public controversy, and contention will only increase at those times when funds available to the GMC become more limited.
I don’t believe financial incentives can reduce burnout. At best, they encourage the individual to remain in an environment or role that is burning them out for a longer period of time, this can be a benefit to the organization, but rarely to the individual.
At some point, Rocket Pool needs to ratify a structure that allows individuals to be consistently and reliably funded for taking roles that are not fun. Grants and volunteer work only work in the long-run if the work is intrinsically enjoyable to the person doing it. There are some types of important work for which very few people are intrinsically motivated.
I suspect this issue falls under this umbrella. I’m moderately sure this stipend thing has come up before in this community, but I don’t think there has been any real movement on an implementation. As someone that has triggered several political nightmares, this is a political nightmare, and being responsible for a political nightmare is not fun. Why would a volunteer or a grantee subject themselves to this when they could pick any one of the less intimidating problems to fix, and work on that instead?
The end result being that the hard problems (which are often some of the most important) don’t get worked on, to the detriment to the community and the project.
