Thank you for your response. First off, more than anything else, my objective here is to propose a solution that will get a productive conversation going so that Chris’ comments are addressed and we’re not in the same situation one year from now where 4/5 ZOMG members don’t want to run for re-election due to “structural issues” that were (more or less) swept under the rug.
My proposal to amend ZIP 1014 is just a rough draft. The exact details would need to be hashed out between ZF and ZOMG, vetted by community members, and approved by ZCAP. However, what I wanted to accomplish was propose something that:
- Allows ZOMG to use its own funds to adequately compensate committee members for their time.
- Allows ZOMG to use its own funds to hire external contractors for administrative and operational support.
- Reduces the financial and staffing burden on ZF so that they can better focus on their own organization’s activities.
- Allows ZF to (1) maintain oversight over ZOMG and (2) remain the administrator of ZOMG’s funds
- Does not disturb the balance of power between ZF/ECC
Some administrative tasks like “executing legally binding contracts” would still need to be handled by ZF. However, overall ZF would be less involved, and this would hopefully give ZOMG more independence and reduce some of the contention that currently exists.
Note: The ZIP 1014 amendment is necessary so that ZOMG can tap its funds for the purposes I mention above. The specifics of executing contracts, hiring/firing/HR stuff, etc. could be laid out in a policy doc separate from the amendment, which could be iterated on over time. Those provisions would not need to be explicitly stated in the ZIP amendment.
@Shawn What are your thoughts about the concerns Chris raised? What made you decide to run again vs. the other incumbents who will not run for re-election? How do you think ZOMG can be improved so that more of next year’s incumbents opt to run for another term?