Wow this poll came out actually pretty tight. With a 5-9 split (currently) I don’t feel confident to move forward with any solution presented. I thought of making a nrGIV DAO vote but I don’t think it’s fair to exclude some of our newer contributors from weighing in.
After some thought and discussion I am in favour of Option 2. I think with Option 1 the risk of organizational implosion is too great if we do this wrong.
I would ask if you voted for Option 1 that you could explain your rationale either here or to me personally so I/we can think of a better solution that will receive more unanimous support.
One thing I thought of would be a clear way to get information held by a Salary or Governance WG. Maybe there’s a channel where we make a request for information, so the requests for information are public but the information is disclosed privately to the requester. Or perhaps the Requests are announced in the channel but the requester is anonymous but it’s tracked somewhere for the WG to know internally who requested what information and when.
Thinking similar to how citizens request information from traditional governments. Open to more ideas.
Can we get started on implementing the Contributor Feedback typeform… and even pull that out as just a governance working group action
There is a lot of great discussion here, but I don’t think it is blocking the idea of a typeform for 360-feedback that can be delivered by the buddies. Ideally we can iterate on that typeform enough that we can get it going this month!
Mitch and I worked on this Buddy Review Guide which includes all of these forms and the step by step process. We’ll start implementing this and cat herd as needed.
I think that the person with the salary should have some say in how far the information is shared. If anyone can request to know anyone’s salary at any time, it’s just the same problems as transparent salaries only a little more slippery feeling.
I haven’t spoken up much about it because it feels very hot to me and I already resigned from paid roles because I can’t commit to many weekly hours and don’t want to live in the pressure cooker of software development and launches at this stage in my life, 30 years is enough thanks.
So I’ll speak from my experience, 20 years in corporate america, 10 years in non-profit administration and volunteer coordination.
Secrets suck. Transparency and Accountability are the bedrock of Web3 and blockchain-based organizations, and a foundational building block of Giveth from the first presentation I heard by Griff in Nashville 2018.
How can we stand and promote these values as a requirement of projects on our platform, and not stand upon them for our own DAO and contributors?
If you do not feel comfortable enough standing before the people you work with and for proudly confident that you are valued equitably and appropriately then maybe you shouldn’t accept the payment.
Thank you for asking my opinion.
Adding: Here’s some research I used to explore current trends, and it is consistent with my experiential observations and resulting opinion. The first one is an excellent report:
People who work together know how much everyone makes.
Any random person and 3 letter agency can see your salary via a google search.
I am pretty strongly against #3 for obvious reasons, some troll on twitter shouldn’t be able to tweet your monthly rate. I am ok with #2 but I do think it usually creates more drama than value, #1 is just easy and let’s us focus on other things.
I’ve done them all and I think the sweet spot is somewhere between 1 and 2.
Hey friends - re: the Buddy Review guide… and contributor typeforms… I think it would be really valuable to have a process for encouraging feedback for contributors.
I would be happy to give feedback on people, but I likely won’t budget time for it unless it’s really high-emotion…
SO! A solution: What if buddy’s also had the responsibility - after booking their quarterly call - to make a message in the discord / seek feedback from other contributors for their buddy. A simple "hey @ unicorn, my buddy awesomeface has their review call coming up, would love to have some feedback to share w/ them! "
this is great feedback - based on my suggestion above and what you’re saying your comfort range is, I’ve drafted an example of how information requests could be handled. As @freshelle proposed we will have a Role Proposal document with no salaries which will be public facing and a Work Agreement which has all the info including salaries which is held privately by the governance WG.
In order to receive access to this information we can have another typeform which will collect the following data:
date of request
requester’s name/ID
reason for request
information they are requesting
We can collect it in a spreadsheet and then a governance WG member will approve or deny the request for info and can/should back up their decision with any notes, especially if they reject a request.
This is just a quick example of how we can keep track of requests:
This will make it so people who work together can get information, but they have to work for it a bit. We have a discretionary process so we just don’t dole out information to anyone and that their request makes sense. This spreadsheet can be made viewable by all contributors so requesters and reviewers are accountable for their actions.
I think this will be the happy medium that can integrate with our current salary structure. If this looks like too much scope for the current governance WG we can always spin off a new one but I don’t think this is too much out of the scope for the information they already handle.
And there’s a potential that we could in the future expand this type of form to include other important information requests - security credentials, security audits/disclosures etc…
Hey everyone! Based on the discussions above, we’ll be proceeding with paid contributors having a Role Proposal (post in forum and add a DAO vote), and having a separate Work Agreement document.
Guide Doc for the Role Proposal/Work Agreement Process
Shoutout to @mitch and @aabugosh for collaborating in this doc. Praise!
Going through the review process w/ buddies, I have some suggestions for improvment:
Reviewer anonymity
When submitting feedback for a contributor, it asks for the persons “name” right out the gate. Originally I thought all feedback was anonymous (as per this post)… it also says it’s going to be shared “anonymously” on the form… but this isn’t made very clear to buddies.
I think on the “name” question we should either have a disclaimer that says “leave blank if you wish to remain anonymous”… or we should make it abundantly clear to buddies not to share names. OR we make another question that says “do you wish to remain anonymous” so that it is up to the reviewer.
Escalated Critical Feedback
We need to define this process more. Right now it is very vague. If a contributor is severely underperforming, it makes sense to answer “yes” according to this:
Then this says it would lead to termination or be raising to conflict resolution… but like - how exactly is that happening right now? We have a pretty underdeveloped Conflict Res WG here. Also… what about graduated sanctions?
The next questions ask for details & for a name. Is it not possible for the reviewer to remain anonymous to the contributor?
Suggesting to end a working agreement is serious and we should have a clearly defined, fair approach. What’s missing, in my opinion:
graduated sanctions… the first “yes” to escalation should have a clear next step.
anonymity for the reviewer
an actual conflict resolution team equipped to deal with these issues
the process clearly defined in the typeform, not just “is there a serious issue w/ their behaviour”
For example, the first “yes” should lead to action from the conflict res… someone from this (currently unclear) conflict reg WG perhaps should reach out to the reviewer to get more info. next, a review call should be scheduled with the contributor where the conflict res person or perhaps a WG steward or perhaps a buddy should go over the (anonymous, if desired) feedback w/ the contributor. A period of time (2 weeks?) should be granted for the contributor to improve… after 2-4 weeks a new check-in/review call should occur to assess improvements…
This can then flow into further escalation as definitely in “Terminating Work Agreements” in the original post.
Right tbh I don’t think we’re actually equipped to deal with escalated feedback, although we’re hacking through it.
Totally right, this should be made more clear on the form, the person filling out the typeform has the option to remain anonymous. This I think we can fix with more clear text on the typeform questions.
This hasn’t happened yet but the plan would be to open a gravity case, creating a bounty for Gravity DAO to faciliate. This would mean a name would be necessary in order for the graviton and/or governance WG member to follow up if they need more information, it won’t be shared with the person in question unless explicitly demanded. Yes, should be made more clear with the wording but also we have yet to test out the full process so we’re navigating some of these details on the fly.
After feedback has been delivered to the contributor via a gravity session there is a minimum wait time of 1 month to allow the contributor to improve. After this “grace period” if the submitter still thinks there is an issue then they can push for a DAO vote to terminate, created by a governance WG member (that holds nrGIV)
I’m open to adding more steps to have robustt graduated sanctions if you have any ideas!
Append Role Propsal Forum Post with new Role Proposal
Outline changes to role proposal
Add link to edited Role Proposal
Then rinse and repeat with Steps 2 and 3.
Are there any parts unclear? Originally I wanted to use ipfs but I think they are editable in some manners, google docs at least can provide us with a change-log to see different versions.
Oh wow, I meant ‘suggesting to “end” a working agreement’. I made a typo and wrote “edit”.
How would we / who would even do this though? We need to have a bounty paid out from nrGIV? From the garden? The beaurocracy for allocating funds to get a graviton, and then get one interested, seems like it really delays an important process.
In lieu of a funcitoning Conflict Resolution WG this would seem the best suited group for the task, and we can also support our friends in Gravity DAO. The bureacracy doesn’t have to be more complicated than what we already do for security disclosures in terms of creating a bounty.
Governance WG can faciliate the hand-off to Gravity
Another topic coming up from our GOV call May 2nd - Pushing for @contributor s to Create and ratify their Role Proposals via the Forum and the nrGIV DAO. This is especially important so that every paid contributor in Giveth has a clear role that other contirbutors can see and is a focal component of this HR upgrade.
Even if you have previously submitted a Work Agreement to the DAO I would like to ask that you make a copy and fill out the Role Proposal Template. This especially includes anyone contracted to work for Giveth through General Magic.
I would like to propose that we give 2 months for all paid contributors not on their trial period to get a Role Proposal up on the DAO. Otherwise we withold salaries until they post a Role Proposal. I will promote this on every Governance Call and Community Call and make reasonable efforts via Discord to get everyone on board.
@aabugosh has a draft of an “Offer Letter” which would bridge the gap between having some sort of on paper agreement for someone on their trial period up until they pass their trial period, in which they would submit a role proposal.
It might be tough for someone who just started to define their role using the template above since there is a steep learning curve to understand the work streams that exist and what services they can/want to provide.
