Good questions Scissors, I’ll try to answer what I can and I’m sure Phylo will jump in also.
The role of the community here is to:
-
Conduct a community vote to accept, modify, or reject this framework. This is currently the Phase I proposal that Phylo has submitted. The framework was developed by the community and the IF working together.
-
The communities role is to submit any governance proposals regarding the Shimmer ecosystem to include the Shimmer Treasury committee. That means, if the committee doesn’t do a good job, or someone wants to modify the framework at a later date, a community member simply needs to submit a governance phase I proposal.
*NOTE: In the governance forum, which is where we are discussing now, as long as “any” post follows the guidelines, which basically state the posts relate to the Shimmer ecosystem and don’t incite harmful comments or support illegal activities, then all posts are allowed. The moderators will only reject a post if it doesn’t meet the guidelines but in no way “choose” what posts are allowed or not. The community, through clicking the heart (ie: Like) button will decide whether a posts moves from Phase I to Phase II and ultimately Phase III, a firefly vote using Shimmer tokens.
Regarding employees and salary negotiations note, there will only be one FTE. That will be the Program Lead working 40 hrs. We originally discussed having all the reviewers only work 5 hrs per week, which still stands; however, there then lies a risk. If the lead simply disappears for whatever reason, there would be a big shock to the Treasury proposal funding process. The lead ultimately will be in charge of managing all of the project process sheets, relations with lawyers, book keepers, etc. If he or she was to simply disappear, the whole process would come to a halt until a new Program Lead could be voted for by the community. To mitigate this one reviewer will act as a “co-lead” to mitigate that risk. The co-lead will support and learn the leads process to step into that position in case the Lead drops out.
*Note: The co-lead would only keep things moving forward until the community votes in a new lead.
As for the other reviewers, they would only work 5 hrs a week, but that is also only if there are proposals that require reviewing. If there are no proposals then the reviewers will not be accuring billable time and won’t be incurring costs. Just roughly analyzing running costs for the employee team, plus extra for administration (ie. book keeping, lawyer fees, and Swiss GmBH), the amount would be $350,000 to $500,000 per year. With today’s $SMR price in relation the 15% allocation, this would be around $2.4 million USDT and thus leave $1.9 to $2.1 USDT in proposal funding.
We have also talked about experts during our discussions. Specifically, I see it involving developers for code review. For instance, preferably the reviewers that get appointed have experience in areas of which proposals will be submitted. If not, the committee can hire a consultant. Personally, I think it would be good for the team to get a list of developers and subject matter experts from the ecosystem who are willing to work on an hourly basis as a consultant if needed.
If anyone’s grant is rejected they can resubmit their grant proposal at the next time interval. I believe it is one season, or one quarter. Note, it is only Tier 1 in which one reviewer is involved. Every tier after either requires two or more reviewers, the whole committee, or the community.
I think we should also note that if anyone from the community has a grievance or feels the committee is acting in bad faith, they can simply use the Governance Forum and submit a Phase I proposal to address this. If the community supports community members grievance then the treasury committee would act accordingly to the communities suggested resolution. This also includes if a proposal is rejected. Anyone can still come to the governance forum and submit it there. If the community supports such a proposal then the committee would represent the communities wishes.
As for the voting process I believe it is articulated somewhere, and I will ask Phylo to provide a link, specifically the steps as to how the community votes for the committee members. The group discussed having submissions go through Discourse here. The community would then short list the reviewers in a Phase II poll. The final members would then be confirmed by the community in a Firefly vote. For the program lead I believe it was suggested to vote for that position directly in Firefly.
The role of the community is to use the Governance Framework (ie: Discourse) to either accept, modify, or reject proposals. So for instance, if this framework is accepted, that does not mean it can never change. If the community feels it should be modified at a later date, that community member simply needs to submit a proposal through the governance channel here in Discourse. If the community supports this and approves it through a final vote, then such modifications would be implemented by the committee team. Another example would be, that if after one year the community may simply decide the committee is doing a horrible job and suggest a completely different framework in which to manage Treasury DAOs funds, then the community can submit that proposal. If the community votes to support this idea then the Treasury committee would be disbanded and a new framework adopted. What I do think is important so that we can attract a quality program lead is that we as a community should support to give the committee a one year commitment. Particularly, for the program lead position as they will be quitting their current job to fill this position on a fulltime basis. Still though, every year the community would need to vote to either extend or disband the Treasury committee, as well as, what percentage of funds the committee will manage for the next year. Ultimately in the end it is always the community that decides on how to manage and use the treasury funds.