Another talking point to be discussed is the method of how each recipient is chosen. Is it fair that people should just expect to receive voting weight or should each person(s) who believe they should be a recipient self-submit a review of their contributions publicly?
Also I believe that the compensation table is incorrect according to the math how I see it figured.
How is it that you approach evaluating to compensate or reward individuals who are very outspoken on the forum, active in discussion (wheter you agree with them or not) and or providing the DAO and the community with development progress? There are only handful of people that are perpetually providing input to conversation. If some of thiose individuals were to stop engaging, there would seem to be no conversation. Also to mention, those individuals have a measurable contribution via discussion, tangibles, proposals, invoke talking points that spark DAO proposals, etc. while some who are voted in as a steward have little to alnost zero input on topics for months even. Really, I’m curious to know where the separation exists between being graciously paid $300,000 and nothing except a "thanks for your participation:? This applies across the board and not just to meta-gov WG. It’s also important to be sure that people are just compensated for their contributions and not if who and who are friends or not, or whatever voice you give to certain people when you read their posts… friendship is irrelevant Work hard, play hard. bidness comes first. just my 2c
Does vesting incentivize to not rotate as a steward?