Working Groups v1.1

Governance
1

This post makes explicit the updates to the Working Group structure based on Improving the Working Group structure.

The updates are all captured in the Leader & Contributor Compensation section of this post.

This post otherwise remains identical to Laying the Rails, though without some of the commentary.

If successful, Working Groups v1.1 will enable clear leaders to assume responsibility for delivering meaningful outcomes that benefit the entire Coop.

Core Principles :rock:

6 principles have remained front & center when thinking about doubling down on this model:

  1. Enable community members to gain more autonomy & accountability.

  2. Ensure focus on high-impact work that addresses core needs that will benefit the entire Coop community.

  3. Ensures that those who drive outcomes are remunerated accordingly.

  4. Enable a clear path to budget.

  5. Ensure community members are set up for success.

  6. Remain flexible & iterative

What are working groups? :woman_astronaut:

  1. Problem-oriented: Working groups are formed to solve specific problems, or take advantage of specific opportunities, in service of the entire Coop community.

  2. Concrete Outcomes/Measurable Results: Ahead of their creation, it is clear what they intend to accomplish for the Coop. They are responsible for producing outcomes that impact Index Coop objectives.

  3. Big Commitment: WG leader(s) are committed to serving the entire Index Coop with the outcomes they are being paid to produce. This is for the comparatively few folks who have the time, energy, bandwidth, focus, and desire to uphold this level of commitment. WGs should have 1 directly responsible individual, and at most, 1 additional co-lead.

  4. Time-bound: For starters, they are time-bound to a given quarter at most. We need to maximize iteration & learning.

  5. Funding: They are approved & funded directly by the Funding Council (formerly known as the Treasury Committee) after an in-the-open process.

  6. Reporting: Leaders will be required to set KPIs and update the Coop each week on their progress. Growing the pool of shared understanding is a fundamental goal.

  7. Continuity Commitment: WG leaders must commit to ensuring continuity of their work at the end of their specific WG’s existence.

  8. No overlap: WG’s should not be redundant with an already operating WG.

How are they created? :factory:

To enable the Coop to quickly launch and learn, this is being kept simple, off-chain, and flexible for starters.

Here are the steps we’ll start with and learn from:

  1. [Optional/Recommended] Outline to the forum for community feedback (i.e. AWG)

  2. Initial proposal posted to forum for community feedback (Google Doc Template) - more on this below

  3. Funding Council assesses (1:1 feedback + public feedback so others can learn)

  4. Updates to initial proposal made + temperature check vote to the forum

  • Forum Vote: Are you in favor of launching a [working_group_name] as described? [Y/N]

  1. (if approved) Gnosis Multi-Sig Funded

  2. (if approved) WG Leader(s) compensated monthly via Funding Council reward process

If running well, the creation process should take less than 5 business days end-to-end.

Why the Funding Council (FC)?

  • It enables the Coop to hold individuals responsible for rapidly improving this process to the benefit of the entire Coop.

  • Layering in more working groups adds complexity to the Coop. Clearly responsible individuals ensures that complexity gets managed well for the Coop.

  • The FC is a short-cut to funding.

  • The FC is in position to help manage funding, alignment, and objectives.

Leader & Contributor Compensation :owl:

Per feedback captured in Improving the Working Groups structure, the following updates/clarifications have been made to Working Groups:

WG Lead Compensation

  • Working Group Leaders can choose their own stipend to be INDEX denominated

Contributor Compensation - if a Working Group Lead expects to pay contributors:

  • Working Group Lead(s) must include a rough budget for contributors during the period of their WG. This is to provide guidance to help the Funding Council budget for the quarter.
  • Working Group Leaders are responsible for determining compensation of their contributors each month. Though the Funding Council will remain responsible for distributing payment on a monthly basis and expects to provide guidance for these determinations.

Initial Proposal :writing_hand:

The initial proposal should make clear to any reader the answers to 3 basic questions

  1. Why should this working group exist?

  2. What will it achieve?

  3. How will it achieve it?

Please use this template for the Initial Proposal.

6 Likes
2

Hi @anon10525910

Great post! It touches on a lot of things I have been wondering how best to tackle. I have a bunch of questions, some are difficult and I don’t think we have answers. Apologies for this in advance. I hope as a community we will at least understand all the intricate details and why we have these inconsistencies.

For my understanding, is it correct to conclude that all contributor rewards are to be distributed from the Funding Council ?

The above positions me to think we have some kind of hybrid mix where some WGs do rewards themselves and others do not. I hope that is not the case because that is probably the most difficult permutation to try capture when trying to allocate costs for financial reporting.

To me this means only the WG Lead can opt in to receive rewards in Qty INDEX per month, core contributors can not ? I notice the term lead is used a lot more loosely these days with sub verticals within verticals. So perhaps, I am just not understanding what lead means in this context.

Interesting point here - Some leads are on FT packages and some are on monthly rewards. These are two vastly different renumeration styles. How does the Funding Council determine the output/impact of a FT Lead compared to a stipend WG Lead ?

I see two very different rewards structures in place that both use output/impact to determine rewards. This implies two different scales for determining rewards. Unless of course the judgement is the impact/output of AWG, POC, PWG, CDWG or TWG lead roles are vastly different to BD or Growth lead roles.

May I suggest breaking this out to show the output/impact of FT versus non full time leads given there is a 2.5x-3x renumeration difference over the course of a year. If we think of output per $1,000 spend, then these measures are a long way apart. Especially when FT are likely to receive a bunch of plus, plus, plus benefits.

Sorry to be difficult, these questions will probably touch on people’s nerves but that is because the system as it currently stands is a rather mismatched and pieced together. Kind of feels like contributor rewards in general needs a straight up overhaul. When the 0.15% over 2 years component in the FT salaries becomes available, contributor rewards costs are going to incur a rather large leap higher.

4 Likes
3

correct :white_check_mark: the Funding Council will remain responsible for distributing payment on a monthly basis

[Edit 7/6 @ 9:50 am CT] Correct :white_check_mark:

though they could be a feature of WG v1.2.

Seeing that WG’s are expiring, time was/is of the essence and there are a number of complexities that need to be figured out, including but not limited to:

  • How do we manage all of the-below?
  • How do we determine lock-in prices?
  • How / when do they reset? Is it tied to the WG or the contributor?
  • How does it work when a contributor works across multiple working groups?
  • Can a single contributor have different lock-in prices across multiple working groups?
  • What happens if INDEX price craters? What happens when INDEX moons?
  • How can all of this tracked in a consistent / transparent manner?

Not being difficult at all, great questions.

Re: multiple different rewards structures // contributor rewards generally needing an overhaul – i believe it is in the Coop’s interest to having different structures that enable different types of contributors to make a meaningful impact. With that said, the current structures have been bottoms-up in nature.

Should you have specific suggestions for improvement, please do share! Improvement & iteration is great.

5 Likes
4

There have been recent sentiments expressed regarding this process in the Index 2.0 workshop; specifically that formation of a WG should rise to the level of an IIP (flagging @oneski22 to provide further comment in that regard). Would you @anon10525910 see value in formalizing this process as outlined here via IIP so as to have a foundational underpinning to the existing WGs? I agree with @oneski22 that formation of WGs should rise to the level of IIP; however, I see broad approval to organize and execute as a contributor community as preferable to each WG formation rising to the level of an INDEX holder vote. (effectively, I think the existing approval process is fine, but the process should be formalized by IIP). For context, the current process does not require an IIP and no IIP establishes the WG structure or process.

There’s a lot happening in tandem, so I’m not looking to drive this ahead of the Index 2.0 discussions, but I think some further discussion on this specific topic would be valuable. Thanks.

4 Likes