I share some similar concerns to what others have raised about the amount of money thatâs being spent here. I wonât cover partnerships as thatâs outside my domain of expertise/I donât have a good intuitive sense of how much âshouldâ be spent on these activities, but feel like itâs fair for me to raise these with Grassroots spending.
Let me start by saying I really appreciate the work PGF Grassroots does - Iâve really enjoyed the Library sessions and Twitter Spaces that Iâve been able to attend, and I think theyâre adding a lot of value to the ecosystem. I 100% believe these efforts are worth dedicating time to, especially with a new focus on planting protocol seeds.
My concerns are two-fold:
- I feel like close to $100k/season is a lot to be spending on these activities.
- I went through the detailed budget shared by @Fishbiscuit and Iâm still not convinced that we need this much time and resources. I also donât fully understand how it has been labelled, for example for the first Public Goods Library column it says :
Sessions: 4h* 8* 40usd = 1.28k
Planning: 4h* 12* 40usd = 1.92k
What are the â8â and â12â numbers and why are they different? Iâm assuming this is to be read as 4h per month * 8 (whatâs this?) * 40USD/hr (contributor salary). Is this consistent throughout the document?
- I feel like thereâs a lot of overlap between the goals and efforts of the Library + Twitter Spaces, and I feel that this could be counterproductive. Why have both Library calls as well as Twitter Spaces with the goal to increase grantee engagement? Shouldnât they have distinct goals? From what I know of community management, you want to decentralize community leadership but centralize plaftforms/channels for community as much as possible, otherwise you risk distractions and information overload of the community you are trying to engage.
- The biggest part of this budget is the Lead salary ($36k) at a very generous rate (higher than what some workstream leads are getting paid), but it isnât clear what the Leadâs day-to-day responsibilities are? There seems to either be a full-time or a number of part-time contributors dedicated to owning and running each initiative - what sort of leadership duties are required at a Grassroots-wide level and if these are vast, why arenât the 6+ other contributors being empowered to take on some of these responsibilities?
- Thereâs $25k dedicated to experimental grantee engagement which hasnât been tested, adds yet another channel for communication with grantees (adds to level of overwhelm), and doesnât seem to have been planned with any consultation with DAO Ops or MMM community building efforts - why couldnât this be completed with the current DAO Citizens strategy being planned at DAO Ops? Which leads me to my next area of concern.
- A lot of grassroots work is community engagement work, but there has historically been little to no collaboration with other community efforts in the DAO, and there doesnât seem like there is any plan to include this in this budget. The DAO Ops and MMM community initiatives share many of the goals as PGF Grassroots, and Iâd love for us to share resources and distribute some of the important work of community engagement.
Just want to close by saying that again, I really appreciate the work that PGF has done so far for the DAO, and couldnât think any higher of this team. That being said, other workstreams have really taken the âleaner DAOâ approach very seriously, often in ways that hasnât been very pleasant and has required us all to reprioritize and hold each other to higher levels of accountability. Iâm just not seeing the same sentiment in this proposal.