Amendments to ZOMG and Potentially ZIP 1014

[Dodger]

@cburniske

1. An agreed to mechanism for gauging a suitable time commitment

I’ve requested that the current ZOMG Committee members provide a breakdown of the time they currently spend on ZOMG business (which Holmes and Chris have published here). Once we have that information from everyone, we can review it and figure out what makes sense going forward (bearing in mind that some of the tasks/work may be delegated to the Ecosystem Relations Manager when they start in October).

@cburniske

2. An agreed to mechanism for adjusting pay in-line with time commitment

The Foundation originally based the $500 per month compensation on the assumption of five hours per month, at a rate of $100 USD per hour. This rate was based on the fair-market value of a non-technical executive at a non-profit with a yearly budget of $5 million USD a year (which doesn’t appear to have changed much since last August).

If we increase the expected time commitment, the compensation could similarly increase.

@cburniske

A problem there is they have a vested interest in making their time commitment and pay as high as possible…

I’m glad that you’ve raised this because, to my mind, it’s a very significant conflict of interest, which is exacerbated if members are seeking to expand the scope of ZOMG beyond that defined in ZIP 1014.

@cburniske

3. Staggering ZOMG elections

…

As for staggering elections, we need to offset re-elections somehow to help the ZOMG maintain continuity of knowledge and execution. It could be that 2 of the 5 ZOMG members run for 18-month seats, and then 3 of 5 run for 12-month seats. From this election forward, all seats would then be for 12-months. Another option would be to have 2 of the 5 run for 6-month seats now.

@holmesworcester

@Dodger is it ZF’s opinion that stagger the elections in the way Chris proposes would require changes to the ZIP? If so, can you propose language that you would support? If not, can we simply declare this to be true now?

I was actually mulling this over the weekend. The ZIP states that “Major Grant Review Committee members SHALL have a one-year term and MAY sit for reelection.”

It does not mandate that the committee members’ terms be synchronous (i.e. start and end at the same time), and it also doesn’t specify how resignations are handled. When SJL resigned, ZF and ECC agreed that, in the interest of continuity, it made sense to go to the person with the next-highest number of votes but, with sufficient notice, we could just as easily stage another ZCAP vote to fill a vacancy (or vacancies).

So, to my mind, one option would be for two members of the next ZOMG committee to resign, effective mid-May (i.e. six months into their term). We could then hold another election (in which they could stand for re-election), after which, we would have three members’ terms expiring in November, and two members’ terms expiring in May.

This is just an idea. It would rely on the current set of candidates agreeing to the plan, and then drawing straws around March next year, to select the two resignees.

I would want to hear ECC’s (as the other key party to ZIP 1014; ping @zooko) and @tromer’s (as a significant contributor) reactions to this plan before we could agree that it’s viable.