Improving the Working Group structure

[anon10525910]

Doing my best to hit your points/questions

@Pepperoni_Joe

Would there be opportunity to define a process which ties all contribution rewards to a specific Working Group/s?

This doesn’t seem quite right to me, unless you are speaking merely from a “labelling the contribution” perspective. WG’s are hired by the Coop to pursue very specific mandates. To attribute ad hoc contributions to Working Groups that WG leaders didn’t ask for/need seems odd…

I’m trying to put a finer point on my objection to this, but am coming up short at the moment.

@Pepperoni_Joe

I believe payments should still be processed centrally.

noted

@Pepperoni_Joe

Virtually all possible activity individuals could undertake within the Coop falls under the remit of one of our existing Working Groups. This means it is unlikely that many more new WGs will form given that the majority of new initiatives will fall under the scope of our existing WG a structure.

Glad you are flagging this – I can see why it might seem/feel this way today, but I don’t think it has to be this way. In fact, I expect niche Working Groups start popping up to tackle specific challenges/problems that are not getting coverage today.

I think we, the Coop, want to encourage a thriving ecosystem of contributors – and one "contributor type"that doesn’t exist today but could is the project-based Working Group.

For one an example, maybe someone wants to spend 1 month doing a deep dive on contributor payment tools in crypto (sablier, superfluid, coordinape, sourcered) and provide a recommendation for how the Coop can leverage those tools. Imo, great!!

@Pepperoni_Joe

I would like to see a standard process in place for all core WG contributors where they can choose whether their fixed monthly reward should be denominated in INDEX of USD.

noted