I do not understand it. I honestly do not understand it and your accusation is an attempt to shrug off responsibility. Direct your lip service to the people who did not do their job please.
This would have been a nice conclusive comment on the budget proposal to be honest How come you or any of the stewards didnāt say it then? It could have saved everyone this trouble. The subWG formation proposal was literally expedited. What do you think I was expediting if not the work? I am genuinely curious what you think you approved if not the work
Yes, that is clearly your mistake. You donāt have any guarantee of funds until there is a āyesā from the DAO or a working group that you will receive funds, that should be very simple to understand and is how every budget process Iāve ever heard of works.
Just submitting a request does not entitle you to funds. A lack of response should clearly be seen as lack of interest in funding the request.
You are the only one with responsibility here. You misled someone to believe they had funds coming that you had not secured. Itās that simple, and I think you know it.
I read the thread now a few times, and honestly, it could be understood in several ways. On the one hand, there was a very detailed proposal that includes work to be done immediately. On the other hand, there was your concise reply, āConsider the group createdā.
I understand you meant it as āthe group creation is approved but the roadmap is notā (right?). But itās so easy to think your reply was also approving the work plan.
I also understand that no specific funds were promised, but it seems that @inplco also didnāt promise any specific funds (right?).
Moreover, it was very visible that the work is being done. It was communicated here all the time and there were discussions. If it wasnāt approved, the time in which the work was being carried out would have been a point to let know explicitly that it was not actually approved.
Nick was/is the lead steward of the meta-governence WG, from which inplco asked for the money. Itās easy to confuse his reply with the agreement of the WG for the work.
I asked RnDAO how much they expected and they told me $2500. I told them that I have initiated the budget proposal with their requested amount and sent them the link to the proposal. Since the work was expedited, they continued the work, as did I. I told them to stop when I did not receive a response on the proposal. I followed the expedited timeline as it was clearly communicated in the subWG formation post.
It appears that the creation of a subgroup may have been interpreted as a blanket approval of funds. Assuming that any amount budget is authorized without going through the proper approval process is procedurally incorrect. Also, a single steward can not approve any funding by themselves.
Discussing the finer details of this may be irrelevant at this point in timeā¦ The user who incorrectly promised the funds has declared they will be initiating a āsoft off-boardā from ENS DAO, and the current meta-governance stewards have decided not to pay the sum of $2500 requested in the budget linked above.
Please refrain from personal attacks or mudslinging.
General guidelines for discussion conduct can be found: here.
I can understand that the budget we were promised had not been approved, but Iām shocked we have to bear the loss as a natural third party that just got caught in between.
Itās not like $2500 will break the bank for ENS and instead having a single mother who worked over the weekend (our contributor) take the hit is horrendous.
Setting aside the funding for 3rd parties, or lack thereof, unless Iām missing something, a reasonably person might conclude that with the creation of the SG, the scope of work was also authorized. In some jurisdictions the SG might have even had a legal duty to begin good faith performance on that scope of work.
I donāt think this is the place to make legal conclusions with respect to legal liability debts.
Itās all moot because itās pay, but itās certainly not expressly stated @inplco legally bound the DAO or represented authority to legally bind that DAO. Itās also being willfully overlooked that the vendor performed work at least as much based on @alisha.ethās comments as follows:
No one knows if itās reasonable for the vendor to have begun preforming based on anything @inplco said, but letās assume good faith on the part of the vendor, the vendor is expressing he also formed a reasonable understanding that the DAO/Stewards had knowledge his was performing the work for the DAO SG because it was acknowledge by a Steward of the DAO. Maybe it is also reasonable the vendor subjectively believed at that point, if the DAO knew the work was being performing unfunded without authorization, then the DAO might have made in inquiry and stopped the work in lieu of acknowledging it.
It doesnāt matter whose debt it is legally, I got this one. Canāt wait for these report cards! LFG
Pretty depraved outlook considering the Director who took home >$2,000,000 + $11,500 per day (~$250,000 in travel alone) retroactively for work performed before any funds were guaranteed is playing Goliath on $2500 in work that is at worst work done in good faith and at best an honest and declared expedited misstep. But life goes on. Good talk lads Thank you for your work @danielo and please proceed with the survey I guess if you want to. Itās up to you what you want next. I have off-boarded as mentioned
Correct. I could not be bothered to issue a correction again. It has been said countless times that this work is nothing like RnDAOās earlier proposal and question is about whether the workplan was approved, not funding. I can only repeat it so many times before I have to start wondering about the utility of it
Why do you keep insisting that āstart the workā = āspend DAOs fundsā? For the 100th time Nick, I did not claim that I had the authority to spend DAOās money. I assumed that the DAO will compensate for the work that they have explicitly approved (meaning you) pending discussions on the amount. Not I, the DAO. How many repetitions will it take for me to clear the air that it was your approval that led me to move forward with the work in good faith? At no point did I have the money or I claimed to have the money. It is your fault for giving an approval that you did not mean and for not communicating clearly to the subWG that your approval was no more than a rubberstamp for another approval. Work was carried out in open but you and the stewards were absent to correct the misstep. You were tagged repeatedly in the posts and asked about the budget. Where do you get off on defending mismanagement and blaming contributors for working in good faith?
Nick deploys wrong contract = Human mistake
Nick skips an entire stage of voting = Human mistake
Contributor starts work right away after approval as declared in good faith = Disingenuous