Thanks @sixtykeys and @BigSky7 , yes, a separate proposal makes a lot of sense.
The GWG has been the umbrella where translation related activities have naturally lived since @LemonadeAlpha brought them to life with his personal bounty rewards from the start of the year. This was a generous temporary measure after resources weren’t available for an initial proposal back in January.
The GWG has blazed a trail as a working group example and grown a lot, with some excellent longform and microcontent capabilities that underpin the Coop’s products’ market successes.
The informal language ops group has also grown and established a lightweight yet highly productive group of contributors who cross into may areas of the Coop with great in-depth knowledge.
With all the growth, it was perhaps inevitable that coordination and admin would suffer, and in no small part because of my own ‘problems with bandwidth’. So, a separate group that can simplify admin while helping project the Coop farther afield is worth a shot. If we can make an amplifier for the GWG, BD and other WG initiatives, then let’s go
And, I believe, by removing language-ops considerations from the GWG budget discussion there can be fewer distractions and the GWG3 can setup to monster Q3!
I’ll start by adding I think language ops has been a valuable addition (evident by me offering to fund it from a personal bounty the past 6+ months).
But language ops has never fallen under GWG.
The decisions here seem rash. I didn’t tell you “idk” @mrvls_brkfst, that is disingenuous. I told you I don’t have room for the $40k you added (post poll) in the GWG III budget.
GWG is explicitly not the treasury.
I’ve also never made a decision to use automated translations, period.
Is GWG, which has just pared down its budget substantially and is already covering a ton of ground in terms of scope, to be voted on based on its disclusion of other budgets? I didn’t think that made sense.
The passing of this proposal is obviously in my own personal interest so I will keep this as short as possible.
First off I see validity in both sides of this recent conversation. Secondly from getting to know members of gwg (and the wider community), my perspective is that we find ourselves here through environmental factors and not personal ones. It is not my belief that anyone has at any point acted in bad faith.
As made clear above the funding for lang. ops. was never formalized and unfortunately, we now find ourselves in a time-pressured situation without a formal solution. @LemonadeAlpha has clearly stated his reasonings and personally, I firmly support them.
It is my suspicion that this is nothing more than a series of unfortunate misunderstandings and missed communications. 100% of which I do not believe are anybody’s fault. We lead busy lives and are working passionately in a fast-paced environment. Limited face-to-face communications, multiple time zones, and even across cultures can all contribute to a mismatch of expectations.
Whilst I don’t agree with @mrvls_brkfst’s method, I do sympathize with the motive. With the funding unclear and unsure of a way to move forward he acted to ensure something he (+many others, including myself) passionately believe will benefit the long-term growth of the co-op, can continue.
Automation: We are all in agreement that automation is the way forward but is no silver bullet. We still require the human touch to verify accuracy, especially when dealing with the nuances and complexities of what we trying to communicate. All going well it may even free up the people we have built relationships with to concentrate on building out our regional footprint.
Forwards.
We need a solution, and we need it quickly. Let’s use this opportunity to drive a positive outcome.
I believe the time has come to formally recognize the hard work and importance of lang ops and hope to see a formal solution put forward to be funded from FC.
It seems like expectations were mismatched, temporary measures extended beyond sustainability and also some assumptions are being made.
IC forums are usually free of personal attacks or even descriptions of other people’s personality which I think is healthy when communicating publicly. I would ask anyone involved to take a breath and unwind the misunderstandings with care.
In case I’ve understood enough of the language ops issue, we are still at a point where the translators, and I believe the coop at large, would benefit from language ops being an autonomous WG. Let’s bring that over to a separate thread and focus on GWG in this thread.
In case a new language ops group is formed it is likely to intersect with the GWG. Some translators have a lot of drive to push out original content as well and hope to make an impact in their local area. How to strategize and reward this properly?
It was an emotional outburst that manifest as a direct personal attack for which I am truly sorry. I deviated far from Coop principles and Guidelines and caused unnecessary distraction. I regrettably transposed my frustration and sincerely do not hold any personal ill will. I was late to the debate, gave little time for reply, made assumptions, and made recommendations about the vote. The post should never have been written and never have stood.
I apologise for all upset caused within the Coop and, most of all, with the person it was directed at. There is no place for such a post at any time here, or anywhere.
Eitherway; what happen be in the past. I think the key takeaway I got from this, we constantly need to be reminded of the Core Principles. Human in nature are forgetful creatures.
But what resonates me the most is the value of EMPATHY; we always need to be mindful that as a DAO, we come from different background, cultures, world views, and sooo much more. It’s always best to take a step back when emotion runs high. And it’s always best to show HUMILITY at times of crisis.
Anyways let’s come back to the discussion table, and find a solution together for Lang-Ops. I feel there’s always a silver lining towards what has transpired. How and what method moving forward is up for deliberation. But one thing for sure; the outcome of this is always the best at that particular time and circumstances.
Personally I look forward to assist and giving inputs so that all of those involved in LangOps are represented. Let’s do this guys~
I also think we should pass this vote, with @LemonadeAlpha 's updated budget, then solve lang ops as its own thing.
We can ensure the website tech can handle a bunch of ways to translate and post, then figure out what we do in time with clear communications and respect for individuals involved in lang ops.
No hard feelings and I am certainly responsible for falling short on communication around this matter.
We are all on the same team and Gav is a respected member of Index Coop for good reason. I admire his tenacity towards acquiring stability for language ops.
Hey @LemonadeAlpha with the FC grant hopefully landing later this week just wanted to confirm the final numbers. You’re expecting a total of $278.5k in INDEX at the time of transaction to fund the GWG, $151.5k of which will be held in the FC wallet for monthly reward distribution, the remaining $127k will be sent to the GWG wallet for additional costs/initiatives?
@DarkForestCapital if @LemonadeAlpha has still money in the GWG multisig (because of his previous prudent financial management!) does there need to be any more funds sent?
Just sent a similar message in Discord. No I think it’s fine to let working groups use leftover for expenses and have the FC sit on the budget for the time being/send across the difference if required.
