Besides @Crypto_Texan interviewing @evan-van-ness in the latest Conversation with the Coop we had the latest Index 2.0 workshop on Owl Levels and Compensation. The Growth WG meeting was unceremoniously postponed in deference to . . .
. . . the latest Index Coop product launch: The Data Economy Index!!!
(It just feels so good to shout it out!) I doubt there are many Owls out there that are unaware, but the ticker is ‘DATA’ (contract). Huge congrats to @Thomas_Hepner and @Kiba on this accomplishment; huge thanks to all the Owls and partners that came together to make this a reality.
Don’t forget, we have a community call tomorrow for the Polygon Diversified Index and an Index 2.0 call on Representation and Equality; we’ll pick back up on Monday with the Weekly Planning call. As always: Don’t DAO too hard this weekend!
Calls to Action:
- Working Group Proposal deadline for Q4: October 4, 2021 (questions to @gregdocter)
- IIP-XY - Removal of Funding Council wallet and hive up into the Operations account by @ElliottWatts
- Request for Feedback: Index Coop KPIs v2.0 by @jdcook
- September Product Update
- IIP-XX-Final : Launching the Robot Index (iRobot) by @Monportefeuille
- IIP-XX: Launch Polygon Diversified Index (PDI) by @Mringz @Ahuja @AsifKhan and Hamzah Khan
Index 2.0: Owl Levels and Compensation (38 attendees)
Jam-boards, breakout-rooms, and tons of other non-hyphenated coordination (oh my!) happened at the latest Index 2.0 gathering. The session was recorded and will be made available soon. After @iluscavia and @Pepperoni_Joe took us on an exploration of how Owl Levels came to be, what they have historically represented (in the early yester-months of 2021 Owl Levels were simply a backward-looking proxy for compensation levels), and then we dove into how they are viewed and might be useful.
Breakout Session No. 1 asked, “What should Owl Levels signal?” As envisioned, they may signal trust, responsibility, and contextual awareness. @BigSky7 drew an apt comparison to the signaling that rank provided in the USMC and shared his thinking around the importance of pushing responsibility to the lowest possible levels. @dylan noted later in the main chat that ‘impact’ should not be the guiding metric for Owl Levels, preferring that established trust, consistency, and accountability be given weight. A common theme was that an ownership mentality and taking ownership of ones work is valuable and should be recognized.
Breakout Session No. 2 focused on defining the Owl Levels more narrowly through metrics such as ‘months of contribution’ and ‘requirements to level-up’. @BigSky7 noted that Owl Levels should be crafted in such a way as to inspire pride with @Static121 adding that quarterly acknowledgment and celebration could be a great way to express that (with side-chatter in raucous agreement). @Metfanmike spoke about the importance of establishing consistency, noting that there’s a tendency for promotion within traditional companies, with demotion far less common.
The presentation continued with an example of how Owl Levels might be used to implement a vested bonus system that would be tied to both Owl Level and token ownership. The ensuing challenges to the example and resulting discussion became somewhat nuanced, but the clear takeaway for this Owl was that having a signaling system tied to Owl Levels can be valuable in many ways and help supplement the available data used to determine contributor benefits. Further discussion is expected to move to the forum.
Some remarks from @BigSky7 rounded out the session nicely by posing the question, “What does winning look like?” and noting that not only de we need FT contributors that aren’t WGLs, but that we need to think about how to inspire Owls at every level. Overall an incredibly insightful session that should help inform the remaining discussions. Genuine thanks goes out to the Owls that made this happen!