Hey, I think @Deep_Sea already gave a lot of great answers, so just some additions and clarifications.
The role of the community is as follows:
This proposal would be decided on in a vote that follows the process laid out in the Shimmer governance framework which means:
- This is Phase 1: - we collect input and feedback and forge the final proposal. -
- In Phase 2, a poll amongst the forum members here decides if this proposal is worthy of being put in front of all voters in Firefly.
- If yes, it becomes a Firefly vote amongst all Shimmer token holders.
- If accepted in Firefly, the proposal will be executed, and once things are set up, the 15% budget will be granted to the committee.
From this point on. The committee acts as described in the proposal.
The role of the community then is:
- To decide on large spending (Tier 4) in a Governance vote through Firefly
- To observe the committee’s work and act if things do not work out as intended, following the Shimmer Governance Framework process. This could be to stop the whole thing or replace individual committee members if they are unhappy with the performance or behavior of a member. As always, only a vote of Shimmer token holders would lead to executing such a measure.
- There will be open meetings of the committee where they will present which projects receive funding, open visible documents where all spending and decisions will be documented.
This proposal aims to create an effective grant-giving entity that acts in the interest of the Shimmer network and its community. Therefore, the committee members could be seen as delegates representing the community’s best interest (A growing network value and activity in the network).
As JD stated already, only the Lead would be an FTE. Individual reviewers would be service providers and only paid on demand.
The decision of which reviewer will take on which proposal will be in the hand of the Lead. I agree that individual reviewers should not be able to “just pick their favorites.”.
Again, options to pay for experts should exist on a case-by-case basis, and JD made some great suggestions.
If a grant is rejected, it can be resubmitted, yes.
We will add those points (and others) in the next version of this proposal to clarify things.
The process to select the Lead and the Reviewers by the community is currently been worked on in this document: Grant committee selection process - Google Docs
Happy to receive more input here, and we will also publish that soon in the forum.