That is a recommendation co-authored by you and it is not an accepted proposal. The recommendation itself says:
My guess upon reading this would be that this recommendation will be formalised somehow (via the current social proposal for funding). It also explicitly states that these numbers are a guide for nominees, while suggesting that this distribution is up for reconsideration after two months when the term expires (which makes sense). To me, the language does not suggest that these numbers are a commitment beyond the two month period at that time, and beyond that, it is a recommendation pending approval/vote.
On a side note, if the stewards have earned this monetary value, then they shouldn’t mind having a vote on this. It will once and for all settle this issue and everyone can rest in peace. Such a proposal will also remove this bug ↓
Instead of stewards deciding salaries at all (whether for themselves or the next iteration), let a vote formalise and settle it.
My primary concern is simply that this distribution is too lopsided toward monetary value and too little toward voting value, and I am sensing avoidance in correcting this. By the way, as one of the more active developers in the community, we will likely also receive an equal amount of ENS tokens as a steward (which is also wrong because we are teams not single individuals). So my own proposal for vesting hurts me more than anyone else since we are running on fumes ($10,000) since September 2023. That’s ethics from my side. I’ll do the right thing even if it means rekting myself. If I fail, I guess I’ll take the monetary value 