[S17 Proposal] INTEGRATED FDD Budget Request

[ccerv1]

Just want to come back to this (after reading comments) and provide a bit more context regarding my position:

• I have full confidence in Joe’s integrity, that he has been acting in good faith, and that he is deeply committed to serving Gitcoin DAO and its community. I hope no one see this process as a referendum on one person’s intentions.

• I have deep respect for the work FDD has provided to the DAO over the years and the impact it has had on Sybil defense (both practically, by preventing attacks during rounds, and through its thought leadership / experimentation) and in the data community. I also hope no one sees this as a referendum on the value or legitimacy of FDD’s work.

• It is normal for organizations to refactor / reorg. Given the market conditions PLUS the fact that the DAO is transitioning from cGrants to a protocol stack, it makes sense to examine the role of “service” workstreams like FDD and question whether the current structure is optimal. As a Steward looking in, my impression is that this could have been communicated / executed better. However, since learning of the plan to dissolve FDD after S17, my position has been to advocate for an orderly and full season-long transition.

@ccerv1

First off, let me say that I deeply admire this team’s intention to work itself out of a job this season and to distribute itself across the DAO and the broader ecosystem. This is admirable and a clear sign of true mission-alignment.

Second, given the intention to dissolve, I am highly supportive of a transition season that not only enables the services provided by FDD to be refactored / relocated but also gives the people reasonable time to find their footing elsewhere in the DAO or the broader ecosystem.

• I don’t have a strong opinion (yet) on whether workstreams should have “gray funds” or what happens to those funds in the event of a workstream dissolving. It appears the DAO is divided on this issue. As Joe and others have said, this should be clarified and made more explicit. That work feels urgent. But I wouldn’t make a decision and then try to apply it retroactively to FDD’s case. From my perspective, FDD can do what it wants to with those funds – but they should be exhausted or at least fully earmarked by the end of S17.

• I do believe the presence of those funds was material information to Stewards. Sure, the funds were not hidden, but the salient issue is that they were not mentioned as a source FDD could draw upon for completing its S17 budget. In effect, FDD had the choice of funding a full S17 by tapping its gray fund OR requesting an allocation from the treasury and preserving the gray fund so it could be used for something else at the end of the season (eg, a Joke Race).

• Finally, on the question of the revote, I am happy to see that this is moving towards a resolution here. Hopefully there are important communication and governance lessons we all gain from this. I would hate to see revotes become a common thing or a new layer of bureaucracy added to decision-making.

I hope people find my comments constructive. I appreciate all of the commentary in this thread and hope this ends up being a net positive in the long run for GTC governance.