FWIW I don’t agree with this. This post declares the Zfnd’s intent to offer compensation to the MGRC from Zfnd’s own slice, which provides one way (perhaps incomplete) to sidestep whether the MGRC can fund itself or not. This post also doesn’t specifically say whether a grant from MGRC to MGRC to compensate themselves is allowable, just that it is not described in the ZIP (in my personal opinion such a loophole would amount to civil disobedience, which could be a prelude to changing the ZIP).
Personally (not speaking for the foundation as whole) I am pretty excited about the MGRC becoming an independent and effective organization. Especially after listening to all the candidate discussions, which make me think we’re tapping into a really excellent set of motivation, energy, competence, to make it happen.
Understood, I have removed that part my post since it seemed that I was speaking on behalf of the Zcash Foundation, my mistake. The Foundations blog post itself is self explanatory.
Right. This is what ZFND will pay the MGRC given that the current ZIP makes it tricky if not impossible for the MGRC to pay itself. I should add, that on an hourly basis, it is inline with what the executive director at ZFND makes (actually slightly more I think). If someone can make a credible case it’s more hours, obviously we can increase it.
If the MGRC wants more money, they can go through the community governance process. I don’t think ZFND would take a position opposing it. (Personally, I would vehemently oppose raising the hourly rate for generic MGRC work , but am open to more hours or specialist pay for e.g. security reviews.).
Again, the fact of the matter is the ZIP we all voted on restricts MGRC to paying out grants. Which makes it nearly impossible for MGRC to pay it self collectively and abide by COI rules on grants. We shouldn’t pretend otherwise because it’s convenient . But we can amend the ZIP/ make a new one and vote on it. There is an avenue for change if we want it.
Also, I should stress, salaries are paid on what the work is worth for those skills, not the worth of the person. And there are established market rates for non-profit work which $100 an hour ($200k a year if full time) is inline with.
The alternative would be we pay based on what else someone can earn doing a different job. Say we could get Ronaldo to be on the MGRC. His football contract is worth 100+ mil a year. Which, even prorated, is clearly not going to work.
Here’s some unsolicited advice to the MGRC. Perhaps it’s something candidates would like to discuss. Cheers! Best wishes on the upcoming election. – Jim Harper
Excellent and well written article @JimHarper , welcome to the forums!
Public goods that would benefit Zcash include popularizing privacy-protective cryptocurrency, drawing in and educating users, developing user-friendly interfaces, and teaching people to secure their crypto assets and their privacy at the same time.
I fully agree there is a need for this kind of education and I had mentioned in this thread, I think it should be a top priority for the MGRC.
It seems no one read the actual ZIP with an eye to " how do we actually pay people?" They just assumed, given the discussion, the ZIP allows payments. I find this surprising, but it’s pretty much the only explanation. Again, the zip is explicitly clear:
The funds SHALL be received and administered by ZF. ZF MUST disburse them as “Major Grants”, but subject to the following additional constraints
The only question is could you somehow abuse the grant process for MGRC to pay itself. Remember part of administering grants is 1) recusing yourself when there’s a conflict of interest 2) evaluating performance of the grant. You obviously cannot do that when you are the one being paid. You could do grants for individual MGRC members and have them recuse themselves for that grant. But its pretty clear that’s 1) an end-run-around and 2) there’s a clear quid-pro-quo on everyone signing off on everyone else’s pay and effort. It’s corrupting the entire process and ethics from day one. It’s very clear to me we should not do that.
Instead 1) ZFND is paying a stipend out of its budget 2) if the MGRC wants more money, they can take it out of their slice by going through the CAP. So if this is a problem, its a temporary one. On the other hand, corrupting the grant process is permanent.
It seems like everything here is happening as it should:
The ZIP says what it says, even if what it says might not be practical.
ZF interprets the ZIP strictly, which is important for the legitimacy of the process, and publishes their interpretation so that it’s clear to everyone.
If, as the MGRC moves to putting all of this into practice, we realize that the ZIP is putting constraints on the MGRC that keep it from doing good work, the MGRC makes the case to the community for updating the ZIP.
In the meantime, the MGRC and its members do the best they can within the existing constraints, documenting whatever pain points exist to define the changes that should be made and make the case for them.
The community finds that case persuasive or it doesn’t.
I don’t think it’s overly optimistic to think that the CAP will vote for changes if the existing ZIP restricts the MGRC’s use of funds in ways that are clearly shooting the process in the foot.
Everything is likely to be complicated this year as things get started. This will not be—by any stretch—the most complicated problem MGRC members address in coming months!
The application period to apply for a position on the MGRC has closed
The top post in this thread shows the list of candidates that have applied. The Zcash Foundation will be posting the official list today.
The next step is the community call with all candidates scheduled for September 4th.
the Foundation will host an open community video call, inviting all candidates to participate and giving community members an opportunity to ask questions directly. Candidates aren’t required to attend, but we encourage them to do so. sign up link for the video call
I will not be able to attend the video chat on Sep 4th, I’m on a deadline and have to make it to the other side of the country before the movers arrive at my new place. Bad timing, best of luck to everyone!
Good luck with the move, don’t worry the community video call is not mandatory.
The community call is just a way for everyone to get in any more questions to the candidates in a live Q&A format before voting opens next week. It will likely be a much longer session than the ones that Hudson hosted just because there will be many more people attending the single call.
I don’t know what questions @amiller has on the schedule but anyone not attending should feel free to just post in thier threads (if they want) if they see a topic addressed during the call that they haven’t already answered in thier thread.
should elected MGRC members collaborate with unelected candidates to encapsulate a wider perspective on the MGRC? I think we can all generally agree we have a solid list of candidates with valuable opinions & I feel that it makes sense for the elected MGRC members to incorporate some of the ideas of the unelected candidates into their work at MGRC.
The MGRC is going to need input from skilled community members and i think all applicants are community members with the zcash vision… Im up for it from either side.
Thank you all for the good discussion on the call! There are so many quality candidates I’m confident that the MGRC will be a good addition to the Zcash governance structure.
I apologize for the rocky start, I tend to get really stressed out about talking in public.
