No, it’s not. It’s misleading to frame steward responsibilities in the diminutive mode. ‘Part-time’ is certainly one way of putting it, but I’d rather acknowledge that the responsibility that comes with being a steward is well worth the compensation, regardless of how many other roles stewards play throughout the space.
In fact, because our current stewards are so actively involved in other ecosystems, that makes them even more valuable.
—
I acknowledge that compensation should be administered by a nonpartisan entity or individual, but let’s not slander our stewards. We should continue to discuss how we can appropriately manage budget and compensation plans without vitriol.
I also acknowledge that according to Rule 10.5 in the Working Group rules, the ‘Meta-Governance working group is responsible for defining standards for fair compensation (‘Compensation Guidelines’)’, but does that mean the same thing as ‘self-dealing’? I think not.
This is just my professional opinion and does not reflect the Meta-Governance Working Group as a whole, but compensation should be administered according to precepts described and developed by the bylaws, to be executed by a nonpartisan role.
—
Certainly, the Meta-Governance Working Group can take responsibility for creating the compensation guidelines and incorporate community feedback. However, I believe the compensation plan itself should be proposed by a nonpartisan individual who is not a current steward, and then put to a vote by the DAO. This approach helps to reduce potential conflicts of interest.
Thus, the Meta-Governance Working Group should have the power to suggest compensation, but not to enforce it. Right now, we are all working under the presumption that the guidelines are a mandate, but they are not. They are merely suggestions, which a certain faction has assumed to be conclusive.
I am still of the sentiment that we should honor last term’s compensation guidelines, but given the current discussion, it’s clear that this is still a matter for debate. While we may have agreed that Meta-Governance is responsible for setting compensation standards, we haven’t yet reached a consensus on the implementation and enforcement of these standards.
Thankfully, we can incorporate the feedback from this discussion into the bylaws.
Bingo. I figure it’s a shame that we have to renege on the original agreement.
—
Here you are (h/t limes.eth), I hope that helps.
To avoid any confusion, I will reiterate here that governance distribution should not be framed primarily as compensation. Governance distribution is a responsibility and empowers individuals to shape the future of the ENS protocol.
Of course, it is up to the individual to decide what they do with that responsibility, and should they choose to exchange their voting power for financial gain, so be it. If an individual values this over their civic duty, then let them be judged on those merits instead.
—
Fair enough, let’s stipulate this in the bylaws then.
100%
Sorry, I still disagree with framing stewardship in a diminutive mode, e.g., as a part-time role. Additionally, I don’t agree that governance distribution should be primarily viewed as compensation, and I believe it is being framed as such in this case.
I agree 100% that governance should be distributed to encourage long-term alignment, but I don’t understand why a certain faction of delegates are so reluctant to distribute it to stewards who have clearly demonstrated their commitment to the DAO for the past 800 days. Seems a little unfair, don’t you think?
—
Ditto.
—
Okay, fair enough. Let’s move to include this in the bylaws discussion.
—
Okay, accessor.eth. Simona has already cited several examples of how she’s made a demonstrable impact throughout the space. If you’re worth your salt, you wouldn’t antagonize this individual at the first opportunity. Instead, you’d take responsibility for your oversight.
—
Agree 100%; bumping this so it gets a little more visibility. 