You know a likely outcome of this going to pass is no annual budget even for the Steward costs of a Working Group. Removing the possibility of annual budgets, those mid career professionals with the skills to delivery and will find the compensation attractive won’t apply. If they are in regular employment, they won’t have the time to become a Steward and probably their terms of employment won’t allow it. They could become contractors, but that would require constant AIPs and lobbying for new initiatives. Perhaps that should be one main role of Stewards (along with Strategy) and leave the implementation to the hired contractors in each initiative under the Working Group.
Currently, the short term AIPs of WGs have attracted a few kinds of applicants and sometimes the Stewards we get now:
Those who got lucky in web3, but then would like to catapult them into a new industry and professional path. Some do well, but taking on such a big new challenge may have knowledge/experience gaps.
Those who have alternative reasons to get hired, such as to help get an AIP passed or to aim to get subcontracting opportunities from the working group.
Those that want the status, but not interested in doing too much.
Those that had relations to get them elected, but don’t really care about ApeCoin and just want to sell the APE for USDT/ETH etc each month.
Those who don’t need the funds and find this all a fascinating new area. If not motivated by the compensation, they may lose interest, token price will be important to them to justify the commitment.
Challenges
How to Attract a Diverse Pool of Candidates?
How to Provide Incentives for Long-Term Commitment?
How to handle smaller allocation to Contractor Budgets or the increase in AIPs needed on an Annual Basis?
Even if we have less WGs and thus less Stewards, we still need more budget to hire Contractors with a certain time period of compensation security.
I don’t deny that WGs have many challenges but not being able to make annual plans is a hinderance on many levels.
I’m just looking at the BB again - seems like lots of changes were made during the seven days I haven’t seen - not sure if 100m payment will be split up - will read fully later and try and figure it all out. Would be nice if there were some updates lol.
After some thought I think the right decision is to make WG budgets exempt. WGs are community approved, so my thinking is I shouldn’t inhibit growth by imposing budget constraints. (@SmartAPE I’ve conceded.)
Also, some of my thinking around not creating an exclusion for WGs was based on AIP-517 passing and the ability to have multiple budgets a year, but as you point out the plan may to be just to have one large budget.
Going to do a bit more research on AIP numbers and amounts etc, and I’m thinking to increase the $300k - base it on achieving say a 5 or 10 year runway.
Note:
Add definition to 1 year - maybe starts January 2025 or 1st of following month after passes etc.
AFAIK, they are already contractors, not employees. Are you an employee in the WG that’s attached to the Foundation?
This ultimately has no remedy because people get voted in to positions based on who they know etc. The pre-existing ones who get re-elected follow the same track until they can no longer run. One glance at all the elections since 2022 show this track.
It’s precisely how we end up with “no show” positions being filled.
100,000,000 APE to be used for the Banana Program, provided:
Up to 65,000,000 APE may be allocated under the Commercial Agreements Initiative in Year 1
Up to 23,000,000 APE may be allocated under the User Incentives Initiative in total, and no more than 73,000,000 APE may be allocated under the Commercial Agreements Initiative in total, unless the Special Council approves such adjustment
The 60/40 (year 1/2) split was not previously disclosed in the proposal nor in the comments. My ACE team learned it through discussions with the BB team about our project; and we have no insight as to the veracity of that guidance. So, who knows when that change was made, by whom, and why.
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in roughly 24 hours.
If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
@furiousanger has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 8 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
That’s why authors shouldn’t be putting title descriptors that are subject to change. That sort of data is for the body of the proposal, not the title.
The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.
If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
