Following the GIVernance call Jan 16 we had some trouble pinning down what some of our basic requirements should be for deeming a contributor eligible to apply for nrGIV.
I think we have a few questions here that we need to get clarity on:
Should a contributor be allowed to apply for nrGIV if they are on their trial period? If no, then…
Does a contributor need a role proposal to apply for nrGIV?
What should the maximum hours per MONTH be that a contributor can work and get paid for WITHOUT having a role proposal?
Let’s jump right into it.
Should a contributor be allowed to apply for nrGIV if they are on their trial period?
Yes
No
Abstain
0voters
Does a contributor need a role proposal to apply for nrGIV?
Yes
No
Abstain
0voters
What should the maximum hours per MONTH be that a contributor can work and get paid for WITHOUT having a role proposal?
5
10
20
40
Something else… will comment below
0voters
If there are any other corner issues around nrGIV eligiblity please let’s use this space to discuss.
I think that if a contributor has passed their trial period and wants NrGIV, a role proposal should mandatory, no matter how many hours they contribute a month.
For me, bottom line, if you want NrGiv, you need a passed role proposal. We need to curate who is voting, not have an open gate.
I would say 30 hours is the sweet spot for this. Also, perhaps we should ask the contributor if they foresee working more than 30 hours in the upcoming months before requesting them to post a role proposal.
For example, they might be working <20 hours for 6 months, then work 50 works for a particular month because of a special task, then back to working less hours the next months. This I think won’t need a role proposal.
I believe we should have an exception for this for temporary and project-based contributors who works more than 30 hours for a few months.
I agree with you on this 100% @hanners717 . Curation seems to me the one very important point.
How do we expect that people who don’t spend enough time working with us, to be completely up to speed with the process, to make a valuable input on votes. If they don’t spend enough time in our work environment, and they only contribute here and there…
I imagine there would be some exceptions like Algene, but that can be addressed as such - exception explained in forum post.
I think that we should consider the governance activity of the contributor.
For instance, Giantkin does not work enough hours to have a role proposal, however, he does already have nrGIV and is active in the DAO and in our governance process. I appreciate his perspective and I’m glad that he is able to participate. i would advocate that we create a system that allows for participation from contributors like Ginatkin.
I think our old requirement of “being active for a full quarter” is pretty key here.
I don’t think we need to make it explicit that you can’t get nrGIV while on a trial, but since trial periods are usually 1 month or 2 months MAX, someone on their trial will not be able to get nrGIV by default.
Perhaps we can make some kind of option for contirbutors to argue their case in the forum upon requesting nrGIV the 1st time. They need to explain that they’ve been involved for a full quarter, and also how they have participated in gov and why they want tokens now.
This way, we don’t need a role proposal, but anyone voting has an easy place to see what that contributor’s deal is.
I don’t remember any requirements for having to work a minimum amount of hours to need a role proposal. If you work 5 hours a week for Giveth and throw up a role proposal, hell yeah that’s awesome.
The question above was more - The maximum amount of hours you can work without one. Giantkin already has had a role proposal up for a long time.
oh dear. i feel like i did something…eheh. anyhow. i think a (passed!) role proposal is Mandatory to get nrgiv. hours before you should do a role proposal? thats harder. (30 isnt in the list. i would vote 30) ofc anyone can toss up the role proposal if they like. (covers me)
I think if we look at the posts that Freshelle puts up every month like this one:
Most of the people who only work part time are really cool and we would be lucky to have them engage with Governance and IMO they also deserve some GIV from vesting (which comes with nrGIV.
I would prefer to have these rules actually be guidelines, and people who don’t meet the guidelines should still be encouraged to try, and people can vote no, especially since the applicant can’t meet the guideling, but honestly, if Stee, Brichis, Sym, Kurt, Brodhisattva, Stee, or Algene (none of whom work enough hours regularly to warrant a role proposal) were contributing for more than 3 months andwanted nrGIV, I would vote to give to them…
But since they don’t have a role proposal a lot of people aren’t really sure what they do. This makes a lot of confusion for the rest of the team since they don’t have the context to use their best discretion while voting.
I noticed many people answered I will comment something else… mostly because they wanted to comment on a totally different aspect… Bringing this question back - What should the maximum hours per MONTH be that a contributor can work and get paid for WITHOUT having a role proposal?
This is nothing explicitly about minting nrGIV but rather about having clarity on budget
Do we agree the magic number is 30 or is there something else I’m missing?
