RRC-23: Framework for setting up a working group

The latest version of this proposal can be found here

Abstract

This proposal outlines a framework delegates shall follow in order kickstart a working group

Motivation

Discussions with the Rari foundation on how to proceed with incentivizing work within the DAO has found consensus on the fact that Working Groups are the way forward for sustainable work within the DAO. However, without a clear structure on how to go about working groups within the DAO it will be difficult to maintain cohesion and find a common path forward.

Rationale

A framework for working groups within the DAO allows contributors to follow clear guidelines to establish, operate and disband any working groups within the DAO as well as for the delegates to keep groups accountable to their mandate, KPIs and MoSs.

Key Terms

Working Group(WG): A group of contributors working together to achieve a purpose

Steward: An individual or organisation which acts as a leader and a primary point of contact for each WG

KPIs: Key Performance Indicators

MoS: Measure of Success

Specification

Procedure:

Any delegate with a verified governance identity can propose to kickstart a WG. A delegate must follow the standard governance procedure in order to kickstart the working group. The proposal specifications should include:

  1. Goals
  2. Timeline
  3. KPIs
  4. MoS
  5. Multi-sig policies
  6. Roles & responsibilities of each member
  7. Budget

Categories:

A working group can be of two types:

  • Trust
  • Skill

Both types can be proposed by any delegate however:

  • Trust based WG (such as a Grants Committee) requires delegates to vote in each member who will participate in the working group
  • Skill based working groups only require delegates to approve the proposed steward. The steward is then delegated the responsibility to add members to the WG based on their competence and skills within the parameters approved by the WG specifications

Structure:

A WG is a group of contributors led by a steward, who work together to achieve a specific goal within a specified timeline and given budget.

Funding:

A workgroup should ask for sufficient funds to meet its short term goals or three-month goals, whichever is smaller.

A Rari DAO WG is solely responsible for activities within the Rari DAO, hence the WG shall not engage in grant seeking activities in order projects or DAOs unless the goal of the WG is business development or fundraising. Consequently the DAO must ensure that the WG is sufficiently funded to carry out its mandate.

Compensation

Working in a Rari DAO WG is not a full-time job and at best can be considered as a part time job. The compensation should primarily be based on the output produced by the group as opposed to the effort put in. However, it is possible that in some cases it is not possible to quantify the output, in which case the following compensation guidelines shall be followed.

Technical Non-technical
Steward 200 USD/hr 120 USD/hr
Member 150 USD/hr 80 USD/hr

WG Continuation:

Once a WG has run out of resources to sustain itself, it may choose to disband itself or ask for more funding to continue its operations. Any delegate can propose to disband any workgroup provided the delegate can offer a clear rationale and the DAO votes in favour of such a proposal.

Next Steps

  • Gather feedback from the community

Budget

This proposal has no cost

1 Like

Thank you for starting this conversation @jengajojo

I like the specification part and the proposed structure.
Now, considering the close ties between Rari DAO and the Foundation, I’m thinking it’s prudent for the process/structure to involve someone either from the Foundation or representing it when a Working Group is initiated.

Ideally, Working Groups—unless with a highly focused and time-limited objective— should last and provide measurable impact to Rari DAO to justify their continuation. If operations are successful, the Foundation representative can gradually step back.

Regarding the compensation, IMO is too high.
however in this initial design phase of the framework, I’d like to brainstorm ideas on implementing accountability for the working groups before I propose any compensation.

2 Likes

What are you comparing the compensation rate to when you conclude that $80 per hour is too much? I agree with Jengajojo on this, mainly because a significant amount of money is already allocated to employees at the Rari Foundation. For instance, the budget allocated in 2024 just for salaries is nearly one million dollars for only five employees, who I believe definitely do not work 8 hours every business day. Even if they did, it would amount to more than $80 per hour :smiley: And that’s just the base salary, excluding additional bonuses or funds allocated for the same employees. Not to mention also paying thousands of dollars monthly to a professional delegate who, God bless, might dedicate one decent workday to us.

If the Rari Foundation were not already making such decisions regarding the allocation of salaries/compensations, I would agree with you that it’s excessive. In this case, however, it seems somewhat hypocritical to make such statements, doesn’t it? :smiley:

1 Like

As JengaJojo mentioned this is more a part-time thing. Hence my opinion of compensation being on the high side.
Compensation ranging from $80 to $200 to me is for a more full-time commitment, and that will not likely be the case with WGs.

The foundation salaries discussion part is not within the scope of this proposal. So I will not refer to this part.

1 Like

In Jenga’s draft, you defended the pro delegate being paid $40,000. That’s also a part-time thing. When analyzing the work and hourly rates, it appears that the pro delegate’s compensation from the treasury significantly exceeds the $80 to $200 per hour we are discussing here. You can argue that he is ‘pro’ but still the difference is humongous. Should it really be valued like that?

There are many delegates, yet almost none seem actively engaged in elevating the Rari ecosystem to the next level. It feels quite passive and sluggish. Could compensation be the catalyst and motivation for them?

P.S. If you’d prefer not to discuss salaries/operational costs/fundings etc. here, should I start a new thread addressing the millions taken from the treasury under the guise of ecosystem growth and staff payments, yet failing to deliver?

2 Likes

Would agree with @Jaf that it would be beneficial to have a Foundation member in a working group.

My experience with working groups is rather, that a certain structure is needed to get any results, instead of having just an open discussion.

They are usually voluntarily, hence a leck of commitment, so some sort of compenstation would be a good idea. Maybe we could say, that compensation is for meetings and includes proper preparation and commitment to the working group. (Paid) tasks then can be defined.

I also don’t get the difference between technical and non-technical, just for drafting in the working group, everybody’s time has kind of the same value.

3 Likes

I like everything about this, it would bring motivation to deliver quality work and you bring a framework thats easy to understand for all of us.

Thank you everyone for the feedback.

Foundation involvement:

  • It would be nice to have a foundation member involved in the WG if they have the bandwidth for this

Compensation:

As mentioned in the proposal, the suggested compensation is only considered when there is a lack of clarity on the output of the task. This can include things such as:

  • A governance WG who’s job maybe to evaluate governance tooling, procedures, suggest updates, work with the community to build consensus and delivery productive updates to the overall governance structure.

  • Another area is conducting research or analysis, the value of this output may not be immediately quantifiable. For example, if a group is researching market trends or evaluating potential partnerships, the impact of their work may not be directly measurable in terms of tangible outcomes

  • Working on strategic plans or roadmaps for the DAO’s future direction may involve a considerable amount of brainstorming, discussion, and iteration. While it is possible to put a numeric value on the output the work involved may considerably vary based on inputs or directions from various groups in the DAO

  • Working groups that create educational content or host events to educate the community may contribute to long-term growth and adoption of the DAO. However, the impact of these initiatives may be challenging to quantify in terms of direct monetary returns especially if they are a part of short term ( 3 month) strategies.

Here are some examples of compensation in working groups from other DAOs: ENS, Apecoin, Balancer, Gitcoin, uniswap. As we can see from these examples of Defi and non-defi DAOs, the hourly compensation proposed in this post is already on the lower side of the industry average.

The difference in technical and non-technical standards proposed here purely rely on if a member of the WG in general is involved in shipping or auditing code. This is a standard practise in the industry which helps in attracting and retaining developer talent.

3 Likes

Thanks for the clarification.

I don’t really get this point, you mean the compensation would be not for being in the working group, but the associated tasks, isn’t that for the operational team then?

I’ve been going through the latest framework proposal for our working groups and wanted to share some thoughts on the compensation part.

The hourly rates mentioned seem pretty standard for contractor rates, which is great for transparency. However, I’m not sure if one-size-fits-all hourly rates are the way to go for every working group. Each group has its own unique demands and scope, right?

From a contractor’s perspective, a percentage-based compensation model often makes more sense. It provides a direct correlation between the project’s scope and the potential reward, which can be especially motivating. For contractors, knowing that their earnings are tied to the overall budget means that as the project scales or becomes more complex, their compensation reflects their increased contribution. This model not only incentivizes higher quality work but also aligns the contractors’ goals with the success of the project, fostering a deeper commitment to achieving the best outcomes.

Personally, I feel like tying compensation to a percentage of the total proposal ask might work better in some cases. For example, charging 3-5% of the total budget could align our incentives more closely with the project’s goals and scale, especially when the workload isn’t clear cut from the start. This way, if a project is particularly large or complex, the compensation adjusts accordingly, which seems fairer than a flat hourly rate. There are definitely situations where hourly could still make sense, though, especially for more predictable tasks.

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback @dzonson.eth @Firefly808 @Jaf @bitblondy @forexus

Here is the final version of the proposal text:

RRC-23: Framework for setting up a working group

Abstract

This proposal outlines a framework delegates shall follow in order kickstart a working group

Motivation

Discussions with the Rari foundation on how to proceed with incentivizing work within the DAO has found consensus on the fact that Working Groups are the way forward for sustainable work within the DAO. However, without a clear structure on how to go about working groups within the DAO it will be difficult to maintain cohesion and find a common path forward.

Rationale

A framework for working groups within the DAO allows contributors to follow clear guidelines to establish, operate and disband any working groups within the DAO as well as for the delegates to keep groups accountable to their mandate, KPIs and MoSs.

Key Terms

Working Group(WG): A group of contributors working together to achieve a purpose

Steward: An individual or organisation which acts as a leader and a primary point of contact for each WG

KPIs: Key Performance Indicators

MoS: Measure of Success

Specification

Procedure:

Any delegate with a verified governance identity can propose to kickstart a WG. A delegate must follow the standard governance procedure in order to kickstart the working group. The proposal specifications should include:

  1. Goals
  2. Timeline
  3. KPIs
  4. MoS
  5. Multi-sig policies
  6. Roles & responsibilities of each member
  7. Budget

Categories:

A working group can be of two types:

  • Trust
  • Skill

Both types can be proposed by any delegate however:

  • Trust based WG (such as a Grants Committee) requires delegates to vote in each member who will participate in the working group
  • Skill based working groups only require delegates to approve the proposed steward. The steward is then delegated the responsibility to add members to the WG based on their competence and skills within the parameters approved by the WG specifications

Structure:

A WG is a group of contributors led by a steward, who work together to achieve a specific goal within a specified timeline and given budget.

Funding:

A workgroup should ask for sufficient funds to meet its short term goals or three-month goals, whichever is smaller.

A Rari DAO WG is solely responsible for activities within the Rari DAO, hence the WG shall not engage in grant seeking activities in order projects or DAOs unless the goal of the WG is business development or fundraising. Consequently the DAO must ensure that the WG is sufficiently funded to carry out its mandate.

Compensation

Working in a Rari DAO WG is not a full-time job and at best can be considered as a part time job. Each working group shall submit a compensation request which is suited to their needs and best reflects the true expenses associated with fulfilling their goals

WG Continuation:

Once a WG has run out of resources to sustain itself, it may choose to disband itself or ask for more funding to continue its operations. Any delegate can propose to disband any workgroup provided the delegate can offer a clear rationale and the DAO votes in favour of such a proposal.

Budget

This proposal has no cost

4 Likes

Thanks for the adapted proposal, agree with your comments @Firefly808.
Will the compensation request be a proposal / voting as well? Maybe we could introduce a process for that.

But sounds fine for me :+1:

Thanks for the proposal.
I also wanted to be part of working group.
Hope this working group is opened to all for those who are having certain voting power.

StableLab supports this initiative to outline the process of starting a working group in the RARI DAO.

As a part of the working group that formed the Delegation Incentive Program StableLab saw how working groups can make a large impact in the DAO. Organizing large initiatives can often be difficult to do as a DAO. There are many conflicting voices and it is unclear who is responsible for what. Having a working group with a specific task helps streamline getting things done in a DAO.

Additionally, a common problem in DAOs is people don’t know how to start on ideas they have to improve the ecosystem. This Proposal clearly outlines how a RARI DAO contributor can start a working group and secure funding to get something done in the DAO.

StableLab believes that this will encourage more contributors to take on different initiatives in the dao and help create a more robust and modular governance system that helps grow the entire RARI ecosystem.

2 Likes

Hi everyone,
RRC-23 is now up for voting in Tally

2 Likes

Fully support this proposal, and voting for.

The framework outlined will streamline the formation, budget and activity of working groups, as well as cater to each working group’s specific needs so as to achieve its goals.

1 Like

I fully support this proposal, as it has clear outline of how contributors can participate in the work groups. Allowing access for any community member to participate in the work groups with an equal opportunity to build projects which move the DAO forward.

1 Like

This proposal has passed onchain vote

1 Like