Love the idea, decentralistdan! Because it was such a pleasure to listen to that call just now and hear how thoughtful and skilled and diverse the candidates are and I always think it is a shame we can only have five of them. 
4 Likes
You did great!
2 Likes
I make the case for āinside-outā grant reviews via coin petition (need not reveal coin holdings, albeit anonymously:)
For example, anyone who wants to contribute a second opinion can enter a lottery in which they may win some Z cash that enables them to participate in the external grant review.
This way, we can incentivize participation (with Zcash!) instead of just begging for it
https://hackmd.io/@jmsjsph/4MGRC#-2-Inside-Out-Grant-Reviews-for-accountability
This is a request for feedback for the sake of transparency and accountability. otherwise, i think the MGRC should be able to administer their own grant review program without undue interference, especially from unelected MGRC members.
1 Like
still think itās not a bad idea to have a couple auxiliary members.
probably too late, but iāll write a ZIP (if necessary) if community thinks it would be a good idea to have auxiliary members on MGRC just in case something happens with the other 5.
2 Likes
Iām not fan of the auxiliary members idea because it implies that they have already been pre-selected somehow to just wait in the wings. Depending on how the MGRC is working together (strengths and weakness) the persons who got the 6th or 7th place amount of votes on the last CAP vote may not necessarily be the best fit for the team at the time.
I would rather see the MGRC establish thier own process for dealing with COI or under-perfoming members. I had suggested earlier:
If it does come to the point of a member wanting/needing to step down, or gets kicked from the MGRC for some other major issue (COI, Ethics policy, etcā¦) then there should be a mechanism that prompts a new election/vote/CAP vote for whomever will replace that seat.
3 Likes
somewhat agree, but why go through all this when MGRC can already have auxiliaries ready to rock-n-roll at a momentās notice. if MGRC member has a life emergency, or cannot vote on a specific proposal due to COI - auxiliary members should already understand MGRC processes, and MGRC wouldnāt skip a beat if anything happens to any members.
if we put it up for a new vote - MGRC would be short handed until replacements go through the ZCAP voting process. they would probably have to learn established MGRC processes from scratch too.
1 Like
I see your point about expediency, it would be faster for someone who knows what is going on to be able to just step into the role and hit the ground running.
Would it be reasonable to expect a set of aux members (who may or may not ever be called upon, and would not be compensated) to continually follow and keep up-to-date on the MGRCs policies/practices and procedures?
A voting process would definitely be a slower process, but with the CAPs support I could see it only taking a few weeks from the announcement that someone is leaving to holding a vote to replace them.
3 Likes
donāt know, good question. have to think on that for a minute.
ā if it were a huge pressing issue, and had to immediately write the ZIP - think i would advocate for auxiliary members to get paid like regular MGRC members for hours worked ā
Continuing the discussion from Major Grants Review Committee Candidates MEGATHREAD:
Hey, all. As the likelihood of another DevFund slice is likely null, perhaps someone should submit a Major Grant proposal for approval of the MGRC for the creation of Open and Active Community Member Developer Faucet Program. From the discussion yesterday, it seems that few members want to stick to the language of the ZIP.
It seems that when people are democratically chosen, those running overpromise leading to future discontent. As I warned on the call, this is a recipe for disaster and may end up being emblematic of off-chain governance. I find it unlikely that this 5 member committee (compensated at $500 a month) can be expected to maintain meaningful active executive relationships with many small projects. However, if only a few grants were awarded, this 5 committee could be responsive and diligent.
I support a MGRC that sticks to the ZIP, thus takes governance and procedure seriously, thereby commits to fulfilling its limited role well, and not voluminously. Please vote for members who are prepared to study and deliberate project fit, rather than execution for its own sake.
3 Likes
I am one of them. I peronally believe I havea more nuanced view.
Am I one of these? I dont beliefe that my very brief commens could have given you this impression.
Would you mind sending me via PM the parts you had an issue with. I trust your opinion., and understand that you might not want to post it publcally. I really want to know. so either i can help clear up confusion or agree that it is an issue. You know I like you application. will be will to help you with it.
good luck mate, the mgrc need more people like you
1 Like
Iām not a voter, but if I could, Iād be voting for you, and hope the panel votes for you. I also like holmes wilson a lot. iām not trying to establish any factions (gross), but I really like what he has to say.
I think we are in an interesting spot. There is a lot of opportunity for zcash to stand out right now, especially if ethereum continues to be a degen platform. I would like to see the MGRC stand out as principled group of community members taking stake in the future through proper processes and determinations, rather than expanding (bureaucracy to business) connections.
2 Likes
I now, this is such a hard thing to do. I feel my posts (especially with he new to the community) have been a bit too terse. but I have tried my best.
Hey are you about for a voice call? i understand if you are not. I think i can help clear up a lot of the confusion. your application is very good. imho.
would a private good hangout for just you and me be okay?
sure, why notā¦
okay I need to swtich computes.
nip to the shop is 20 mins okay? Will PM you with deatils
and go by a rink. back in 5
okay, i wll set something up and pm you
I am a voter. I like your firm stance. I do believe that from your professionalism you would listen to others and work out the best compromise.
Really liked the voice call. - I think a few of the thinks might not be problems, just because of the dynamics. for example as this is the only think I can see that might just have been a slip of the tounge.
From a financial aspect, the zfnd gets all the money they have to save in a warchest.
When the MGRC gets a grant application they should seek non binding input from the ECC and ZFND. (will the ECC charge the MGRC for these services @joshs ? i remember a long time ago where I suggested the MGās put in causes to pay the ECC for training to get up to speed)
@joshs, @zooko and potential MGRC candidate @mhluongo have all expressed that this is something that could be considered.
I echo this concern . Thankfully I have absolute trust in the CAP.
I would just like to reiterate, people cant change 1014 within the next two NU upgrated. by then we will now if it is a success or a failure. If it fails, why? can we do better?
Iām not sure if this has been clarified already, but I see some MGRC applicants are voters, do all applicants have a vote? If not, are the applicants that do planning to vote for themselves?
I plan on voting for myself - there are no other candidates that are willing and able to be 100% dedicated, 100% independent of ECC and ZF (am i mistaken?).
Many candidates failed to acknowledge legitimacy of ZIP1014 and even fewer have offered an agenda.
My remaining votes will go to Sarah Jamie Lewis, Holmes Wilson and two others. I believe SJL is needed to integrate security review in the grant review process and Holmes has hands-on experience working with wallet code, both of which have many many other favorable qualities (I will detail in my upcoming MGRC Voterās Guide). @Lawzec, are you still running? @mistfpga, have you determined your dream team?
@antonie when can we expect the latest candidate call to be posted? Iām concerned that ZCAP will not have time to review this weekend before voting begins on the weekdays
1 Like
I had the same thig. I guess it is just for or against per candidate. makse sese. so you get 1 vote per candidate
The vote has been changed. I asked this question a wile ago (i am a CAP member and an candidate)
The initial form of voting was you had to pick the 5 best for the position. This was recently changed - out lined in the zfnd blog post - were you can pick any number, so it is more a vote for who you dont want.
2 Likes