IIP-85 Temporary Funding Council Decision Making

IIP Number: 85
Title: Temporary Funding Council Decision Making
Status: Proposed
Author(s): @gregdocter, @DarkForestCapital, @pepperoni_joe
Discussions-to: [n/a for now]
Created: 9/14/21

Simple Summary

‌This is a proposal to temporarily grant the Funding Council clear decision making responsibility on Q4 Working Group proposals. Importantly, it also puts forward a framework by which those decisions will be made.

The desired outcome is a community-validated process for approving Working Group proposals for Q4-2021.

This delegation of responsibility will expire at the end of Q4-21 (December 31, 2021) or upon the creation of a replacement decision making responsibility via the Index 2.0 process, whichever comes first.

Abstract

If this proposal is implemented: The Funding Council will have more clear responsibility to follow a decision making process when reviewing and approving Working Groups for Q4. The proposed process is detailed below.

Expiration: This delegation of decision making responsibility will expire at the end of Q4-21 (December 31, 2021) or upon the creation of a replacement decision making responsibility via the Index 2.0 process, whichever comes first.

No other changes are being proposed: The Funding Council will continue to review proposals, insist on consistency across proposals, ask sharp questions in the forums on behalf of the Coop, process & distribute payments on a monthly basis, and will have to request a Grant #5 in order to process Working Group Contributor Payments, among its other responsibilities.

Motivation

Working Groups Context [Background]
The Funding Council (formerly Treasury Committee) exists via quarterly IIPs. See: Grant #4, Grant #3, Grant #2, Genesis Grant.

The Working Group structure is a Funding Council construct put into existence on March 9, 2021 via Laying the rails for Working Groups (WG) v1 . It was slightly modified via Working Groups v1.1. Those posts communicate the process by which Working Groups are created (“how are they created”).

Index 2.0 [Context]
The Coop is currently in the midst of change via the Index 2.0 process.

Based on sentiment expressed in the “Future of Finance” workshop and elsewhere, it seems clear that the nature of the Funding Council will change in the next couple of months. The exact changes are not yet known and will not be implemented in time to ensure that Working Group Leaders have clarity needed to plan & operate in Q4-2021.

As such, we are seeking an interim solution that ensures operations continue while also respecting and supporting the Index 2.0 process.

Problem Statement(s)
Given the-above context, the current state of approving Working Groups is inadequate because:

  • Index 2.0 conversations have made clear that the status quo is unsatisfactory. As such, the Funding Council wants to more clearly act on behalf of the community.
  • There is no clear framework for how the Funding Council decides to approve a Working Group.
  • The Index Coop lacks a clear process by which Working Groups are approved for Q4-2021.

Specification

Overview

‌This IIP will solve those problems by

  • Providing a clear decision making process
  • Seeking community buy-in on this interim solution
  • Until expiration, more clearly granting Funding Council members the responsibility to enact that decision making process on behalf of the Coop

Proposed Decision Making Process

A final poll posted in the forums will ultimately be used to determine approval.

Here is the proposed process

Proposals and feedback
[No change] Working Group Proposals are posted to the forums. Steps 1-3 (post, FC assesses, any updates made) ensues, as specified in Working Groups v1.1.

“Final Vote” Poll
Once the Working Group Proposer is ready, they will update the forum post with a “Final Vote” poll.

This poll must be created according the following guidelines

  • Single Choice: FOR / AGAINST
  • Anonymous voting (that is, do not check “show who voted”)
  • Automatically close poll: 3 days after posting.
  • Show Results: Only after voting
  • Limit voting to: Trust Level 1

Announcements

  • The Final Vote must be announced by the author as a reply to the original post
  • This announcement should make clear this is the “Final Vote.”

Odds/ends

  • Only one “Final Vote” poll may be posted
  • Working Group proposers are certainly welcome to use “temperature check” polls prior to this step.

Passing Thresholds

  • 20 or more voters must participate
  • 80% or more must vote FOR

If passing thresholds are not met

  • The Funding Council will not include the proposed Working Group’s requested budget as part of the Grant #5 requests.
  • If the Working Group still wishes to seek funding they can nonetheless propose themselves via IIP to receive funding directly from the Community Treasury.

This process will be utilized by the Funding Council for all Working Group proposals until expiration at the end of Q4-21 (December 31, 2021) or upon the creation of a replacement decision making responsibility via the Index 2.0 process, whichever comes first.

Rationale

There are a number of considerations and alternatives.

Considerations

  • Need for a stopgap - Index 2.0 and the “Future of Finance” is advancing. It is known things will change, but it is not known when or how. Until then, the Coop must continue operating.
  • Need for community buy-in - At this stage, the FC is not comfortable making decisions on working group proposals without more clear community buy-in.
  • Time is of the essence - Working Groups need clarity now in order to prepare for Q4. Not providing clarity could lead to a Coop-Wide operations slowdown.

‌A few, alternatives were considered:

  • Maintain status quo: This was discarded due to the feeling on the FC of lack of clear responsibility to say “yes” or “no,” as well the sentiment expressed by the broader community around the FC. We want deeper community buy-in.
  • Run all WG proposals as IIPs: This could also work, though the concerns such as of voter fatigue (we expect ~10 Working Group proposals) & outsiders influencing the outcomes lead us to believe it is not the ideal solution right now.

Risks

Forum Poll
A forum poll is not a perfect voting solution. For one thing, it is open to sybil attack.

Mitigant: Working Group proposers must limit voting to “Trust Level 1” to mitigate this risk.

All-or-nothing Grant IIP
One risk that has always existed, and will continue, is that Working Groups’ budgets rely on an “all or nothing” IIP to grant INDEX to the Funding Council (i.e. Funding Council Grant #4). It is only possible to propose that grant after clarity is gained on the number of working groups & their budget requirements.

Mitigants:

  • Contributor voting on each Working Group proposal should mean that any WG that gets approved has sufficient community buy-in. Ostensibly, this will lead to a successful Grant #5.
  • If the future Grant #5 IIP vote fails, there are two fallbacks
    • Operations should be able to continue for some period of time using funds that may remain in the FC wallet from Grant #4
    • Working Groups can propose themselves via IIP to receive funding directly from the Community Treasury. This introduces other risks & challenges, but should ensure some continuity of operations.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.

15 Likes

Bumping here and tagging current working group leaders for visibility [apologies if i missed anyone]

@DevOnDeFi , @jdcook , @LemonadeAlpha , @mrvls_brkfst , @BigSky7 , @overanalyser , @puniaviision , @dylan , @Matthew_Graham , @Pepperoni_Joe , @Metfanmike , @fallow8

I am seeing 7 likes, but want to make sure questions/concerns/etc… are surfaced & addressed such that we reach the best outcome together.

I am FOR this proposal with a Trust level 1 requirement for voting. Simply put, this is a necessary stop-gap between now and Index 2.0 and the best approach given what’s in place now and what WGLs are used to.

5 Likes

FOR - much needed stop gap to continue necessary COOP operations during Index 2.0 discussion

3 Likes

I am also FOR this as a stop gap, interim measure as others describe above. Thank you @gregdocter

2 Likes

FOR: this gives the coop the ability to keep operating effectively, without rushing through 10 funding IIPs, while we agree on the next iteration of the funding process.

3 Likes

Noted. Pending further feedback, I intend to include this in the final version of the proposal.

3 Likes

I am FOR for this.

Echoes @BigSky7 thoughts. Operations still needs to run while the process of revamping is occurring via Index 2.0.

Now that this has been up for a few days, I plan to soon put up a new forum post titled IIP-XX Temporary Funding Council Decision Making. edit this post’s title & body, making clear the edits in separate reply. I just realized that I don’t want to lose the history of this post by starting fresh [EDIT]

It will incorporate the Trust Level 1 change and remove much of the commentary.

3 Likes

I am FOR this proposal.

Edits made to clean this post up as a proper IIP :point_down:

Edits

Updated title from [Draft IIP] Temporary Funding Council Decision Making

“Risks-Forum Poll:” updated mitigant to make clear that voting is limited to Trust Level 1. Removed Image.

Added

To “Here is the proposed process:” Limit voting to: Trust Level 1

Removed

Preamble
This topic was first discussed on the September 8th, 2021 Leadership Forum [Slides ], and surfaced again on the 9/23 Weekly Planning Call. This proposal is intended to reflect the sentiment expressed on 9/8 call.

The goal is to reach a good outcome soon, such that Working Group Leaders & Contributors can proceed into Q4 with clarity :owl:I look forward to constructive questions & feedback!

Request for Feedback

Please share your constructive questions and feedback! That’s how we’ll iterate and improve :muscle: The motivation here is to figure out a solution that best serves the DAO.

I expect to hit this topic on tomorrow’s (9/14) Leadership Forum call.

feedback is, of course, still welcome.

3 Likes

Requesting independent IIP editor review and IIP number assignment (Gitbook: IIP Step-by-Step) :pray:

I welcome any edits :+1: lemme know!

2 Likes

Tagging @mel.eth and @sixtykeys for the review/# assignment.

2 Likes

Noticing this was upgraded to an IIP with #85, I have upgraded the status from “draft” to “proposed”

@mel.eth or @sixtykeys when will the 48 hour waiting period be hit? (looking at IIP step-by-step)

Trying to figure out when the best time is call for the vote to start run this vote [edit]…

1 Like

Hey Greg, the 48 hours will be hit on Thursday, September 23rd. I would suggest a snapshot date of Monday, September 27th to avoid voting going into the weekend.

3 Likes

Now that the 48 hour waiting period is over, requesting that this IIP be queued for Snapshot voting that goes live on Monday 9/27

1 Like

This proposal is set to go live today at 1800 UTC, with voting ending on September 30, 2021 at 1800 UTC.

Snapshot here.

cc: @mel.eth, @gregdocter

IIP-85 has passed :white_check_mark:

This impacts all Working Group proposals.

A final poll posted in the forums will ultimately be used to determine approval (see above for details).

Working Group Proposers – please don’t hesitate with any questions.

5 Likes