Hey Joe, I can see what you’re getting at but there is some inconsistency with this approach compared to other wg leads.
The working groups were set up with the following in mind:
We haven’t seen anything that resembles double dipping if you look at wg leaders rewards since working groups were introduced, other leads have instead focused on delivering their priorities and scoping the stipend to suit. Including an amount for potential future work doesn’t seem like the right approach. The upside of which is that high impact stuff (like Matt’s leadership of the AAVE proposal) will be rewarded appropriately. Leads are held accountable by what they set out in their proposals, so if someone tried to game the system, it’s unlikely the community would vote them in to lead the next iteration.