Based on comments from @mfw78 and @netrunner, the current proposal appears to be insufficient. Specifically, an increase in compensation, clearer role delineation, and adding new members appear necessary.
-
The grant committee is facing challenges.
While having a single individual cover multiple tasks is ideal, as @netrunner and @mfw78 point out, that is not always feasible.
Two key challenges currently exist:
(1) compensation that does not match the actual workload
(2) insufficient capacity to handle all stewardship activities. -
The proposed design isn’t enough to overcome the challenges.
Although a bonus system may provide a partial fix, unclear responsibilities and workload expectations for each role could create uncertainty for committee members and may ultimately fail to guarantee the committee’s necessary capacity. -
There are three Potential Approaches.
Considering these points, there are three main approaches to address these issues.
- Increasing compensation
- Dividing responsibilities more explicitly (for example, establishing separate Reviewer and Steward roles within the Grant Committee)
- Adding members
Drawing on other DAOs’ experiences, if the Grant Committee aims to broaden its scope and tackle additional responsibilities, it will likely benefit from functional specialization. Expanding the team also appears to be a natural course of action.