[Proposal] FDD Workstream Season 13 Budget Request

[akrtws]

@lefterisjp

Having GTC delegated to me does not pay me in any way for my time which is quite very limited. So no I don’t think it’s my, or any other steward’s duty to do anything unless we start getting paid and also have a contractual relation with the DAO.

I realize this is quite different to the view I had when I first started being a steward but I had seriously underestimated the amount of pro bono work this would require when the DAO was starting.

Valid point, same here. Being a steward/multisig keyholder is not sustainable in the current set up. But let’s not punish FDD for this problem, since it’s not their mistake. I’m grateful that this discussion is coming up, and I’ll be glad to see the roles evolve.

@lefterisjp

For the reserves I also find it really weird a given workstream of the DAO would need any sort of reserves. So long as the DAO has funds, the workstreams would be funded by the DAO as long as they do their work.

The voting on the this season’s FDD budget is pending because of this discussion. Proves that there can be situations when a buffer is needed. I think it’s smart to prepare for such situations, because there’s a risk of loosing really critical contributors due to such delays - be it at FDD or any other work stream.

@lefterisjp

I would much rather prefer to see Gitcoin DAO as a whole figure out a way to make sure all its employees have no disruptions in their payments through a common and unified approach rather than have a single workstream have such big reserves.

Valid route to solve this issue, let’s address it.

@lefterisjp

What I would also like to see though is a performance review of the FDD made by another workstream or DAO member. Since all the material I have read are actually made by FDD they could be biased. So would be nice to see an independent performance review.

Yes to that - adds to the need to further develop Gitcoin DAO roles.

Many of the issues mentioned in this whole discussion (role definitions, reserves, timelines, reviewing process) are caused by the fact that the organisational set up obviously didn’t keep pace with the workstreams’ development.

What if you were an ambitious, skilled contributor watching the DAO fail to assess a proposal properly and as a result your proposal was turned down in the voting? You’d probably look for a better place to invest your time.

Let’s not make steward/multisig issues the problem of a workstream. And please let’s not punish FDD or any other Gitcoin DAO workstream for being fast and ambitious.