Thanks for starting this conversation. I agree that there is work that needs to be done by members of the committee that likely requires full time effort - but not so much effort that it makes sense for all members to be appointed to full time positions. However, I have two main concerns about the current proposed structure:
This 2-3 split concentrates power in the hands of the 2 admins - Due to the full time nature of the position they will have more influence over what applications are presented to the committee, and where they spend time in shaping applications.
On the flip side, that compensation split is also unbalanced - it makes very little sense to pay all members the same is 3 are slated to do less work - especially without a defined list of specialisms to fill those roles.
The zcash community are voting for those who will best reflect their interests as a community. Any imbalance within the structure of the committee itself risks undermining those decisions.
As such, in order to balance these power differentials with the needs of the community, I propose an slightly alternative structure (which is very similar in spirit, with a few specific technicalities which I think are important to preserve the integrity of the committee):
- All committee members are paid a base compensation that covers reviewing, discussing and voting on proposals.
- 2 committee members, voted on by all 5 elected members, are elected to co-chair the committee and are responsible for managing the day-to-day business of the committee including, but not limited to:
- Community Outreach
- Operations
- Communication with applicants and grantees (answering questions, maintaining FAQs) - but any material change in contract must be approved by the committee.
- Organizing committee business
- Transparency Reports
- Co-chairs are compensated for the additional time they will spend on committee business. I imagine this will initially be full time work.
- Co-chair positions are subject to ongoing review by the committee, and can be replaced by a committee vote.
- If particular applications (or other community business) require additional review (and/or work), and the committee believes that it possesses the skills to conduct the review internally, then compensated sub-committees can be created subject to a vote of the committee. (These would be analogous too the “Specialists” in the initial proposal, but more specifically defined and time limited).
- If the committee fails to structure a sub-committee of expertise for any particular proposal, then it has the option of reviewing external applications for such expertise.