Welcome to the Dash Forum!

Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!

DCG and non-core functions

Discussion in 'Pre + Budget Proposal Discussions' started by Unstoppable, Jul 12, 2018.

  1. Unstoppable

    Unstoppable Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2018
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Several MNOs, including yours truly, feel Dash may be better served by removing some non-core functions from the Dash Core Group. It stands to reason that Dash will gain finer grain control of the rapidly growing team, more transparency, and accountability, if it is handled properly. We're all fans of decentralization here, and we all want to get it right. Once these responsibilities have been spun off, DCG will be forbidden from conducting them, but cooperation and coordination will be required. We don't need our separate official groups becoming cutthroat and competing for resources.

    So, let's hash it out and put it up for a vote. I propose here that we, as a minimum, determine just how far we want to take this idea, and once we have done so, an MNO submits a proposal to separate just one component from DCG, whether that first step is pr/marketing or bizdev, or other, and see how it goes. I also suggest we do not act further for at least 6-9 months to allow the dust to settle and develop some 'lessons learned', in case of slowly festering ripple effects which cannot be identified unless on a longer timeframe.

    The proposal should include a reasonable timeframe to make the transition, perhaps within three months of approval. The proposal should request 5 dash to recoup the cost. In case it doesn't pass, we can pledge to make the proposal owner whole. I hereby pledge 1 dash to whoever bites this bullet in case it doesn't pass. Further, if we get 5 pledges of one dash each, and nobody else is willing, I'll do it.

    I suggest our first vote is to make Marketing stand on it's own. It should be allowed to bring with it any funds already allocated to it. So, if we make marketing stand on it's own, what exactly, in reasonably defined objectives/goals, do we expect of them? Is PR separate from Marketing? Where do you draw the line between Marking and BizDev?

    Maybe Ryan, knowing we want to push in this direction, can help us with this so we don't shoot ourselves in the foot. I can personally guarantee not all MNOs are or ever have been a C-level executive.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. JZA

    JZA Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dash Address:
    XmZ3aBBWJdYa6hUJkWbTvwHMwMscmHQFNH
    I agree with this in concept. However Marketing has been linked to things like the website and the social media, not just that but they are just getting their analytics correctly, and this is what a product manager will comunicate to development. So one thing we should think about is how these things will work. For example, the domain, hosting and others are generally handled by core, the stats and feedback is also connected to core. Separating this from core will need to have some protocol to communicate these analytics or should just be reformated to an independent part that will communicate throught open reports.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. Arthyron

    Arthyron Active Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    103
    It's important to note that the opinions across the MNOs that have expressed interest in the topic have not been unanimously in favor of compartmentalizing the various functions performed by Core in to smaller, separate, discrete sub-organizations. That's just one of several responses to the decline in price, CMC ranking, and the slightly more common complaint that Dash is not fairly/accurate/sufficiently represented in the public arena, particularly where the crytpocurrency industry and related media are concerned. I think most everyone agrees that these few things are indeed problems that could benefit from alterations to strategy, organization, and treasury spending, but not everyone agrees on a clear-cut solution(s) to each of the problems. It's also important to distinguish each of the problems we hope to address individually, noting potential common root causes between them, but there's a tendency when times are tough to look for scapegoats and oversimplify the issues, lump problems and supposed causes together, etc.

    The litany of problems--and which topics constitute problems--depend partially on which "camp" you're in in terms of what you believe Dash is, what it is becoming, what it ought to be, who ought to be in charge of what and to what extent, what values and goals are important, and how best to achieve them. There are some people who are just investors looking to maximize profits, others who are ideologically motivated (whether some social, political, or economic philosophy or affiliation), some who see Dash as a means to some other end like making a living or improving the living conditions in their own country or life situation, others still who only want to make a lasting impact on the world, and if we're honest most of us are some combination thereof.

    Some people--such as yourself, @Unstoppable --seem to value decentralization on an ideological level. There are many arguments in favor of decentralization and a decentralized team, after all that was sort of the point of cryptocurrency in general and Dash in particular, to create decentralized solutions to the problems inherent to existing centralized structures and services. I would count myself among those that prefer decentralization to centralization, all other things being equal, however I strongly caution against decentralization for the mere sake of decentralization, which is nothing more than idealism or dogmatism depending on how fervently the belief is held. Moving forward with any proposed solution or the agreement not to make changes at this time, it's *essential*--in my mind at least--that the decisions made be made for purely pragmatic reasons that consider the long-term implications to the project and the space as a whole, not to mention the staff and community members that have poured their heart and soul in to the project. Obviously sometimes tough decisions need to be made, and sometimes those are unpleasant and not everyone is going to agree or like them and some people may have a lot to lose in the process, but with that being said, we cannot allow the decisions we make to be held sway by emotion or bias or fallacy or ideology. The decision must revolve around what is believed to be best for the network and its aggregate long-term goals if we're to find any meaningful consensus that is not just the tyranny of the majority or the voting gentry like ourselves.

    I'm not at present arguing for any particular viewpoint or end-goal, but I feel these are paramount considerations that need to factor in to what--if anything--is decided.

    We also need to consider whether or not this is the ideal platform for this discussion as well as if this is indeed the right time when there are so many things that have yet to be revealed but more or less have a timeframe in which they will be (announcements regarding the Roadmap, Evolution, Dash Ventures, partnerships and integrations, DCG accomplishments, etc) in the upcoming Q2 conference call. I believe it would be wise to wait until that call is complete before any such deliberations begin, because we need to know what we're working with and what is already underway, otherwise we could severely damage the network further and waste precious resources, and Dash cannot afford that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. masternube

    masternube New Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2017
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Thanks for starting this thread.
    I agree that MNOs currently have too little control over the things that DCG does.
    But I don't think the solution is to split up DCG. I believe these groups can benefit a lot from being together.

    My problem is that if there is only 1 compensation proposal, I have no way of saying that I think the marketing team is too big, or that DCG should stop expanding until Dash price increases.

    Even if DCG would be split up, I would still have this problem. Even if they focus only on software development, if they post a proposal where they say there is a team of 40 people and they plan to expand to 50, I want to be able to say things like "I support compensation for 40 people but not for 50", or "I would support a team of 35 but I think 40 is already too much", without voting no on compensation altogether.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. JZA

    JZA Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dash Address:
    XmZ3aBBWJdYa6hUJkWbTvwHMwMscmHQFNH
    Thats why pre-proposals are made.
     
  6. demo

    demo Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2016
    Messages:
    3,128
    Likes Received:
    243
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Dash Address:
    XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
    Vote the numbers maybe? So many times, this same story appears....:rolleyes:

    But there is not even a tiny community worldwide (or at least I am not aware of it), there is not a single moment in the history of humanity (or at least I am not aware of it), where a group of people were allowed to vote the numbers. Dont you wonder why? If this is not considered as a real conspiracy, if this is not considered as a massive blindness, hallucination and deception of the humankind, then what else can be considered as such?
     
    #6 demo, Jul 28, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  7. billyjoeallen

    billyjoeallen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ideology is worthless if it doesn't provide utility in the real world. Decentralization is a value not just because a wider distribution of power is more morally just but because it produces better outcomes. If the increase in accountability didn't more than compensate for the loss in efficiency of distributing responsibility, then Dash wouldn't have made it this far. There is only conflict between ideology and pragmatism if you have the wrong ideology.
     
  8. billyjoeallen

    billyjoeallen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm wondering if micromanaging Core could create as many problems as it solves.

    I would be happy to just say "MNOs expect CDG to do X,Y, and Z. W don't care how you do it or how much it costs, but if you do it, you'll get a specified amount of Dash and NOT BEFORE. In fact, if some other organization does it first, we'll pay them instead. Keep increasing the prize purse if necessary until stuff gets done.
     
  9. JZA

    JZA Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dash Address:
    XmZ3aBBWJdYa6hUJkWbTvwHMwMscmHQFNH
    Just like any proposal, people can make suggestion on change at the pre-proposal level, better yet, why there was none of these comments on the pre-proposal period? and if they were, I suggest to be more insistent, the reality is that the pre-proposal period is not taken as seriously by the community and that's on us.
     
  10. JZA

    JZA Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dash Address:
    XmZ3aBBWJdYa6hUJkWbTvwHMwMscmHQFNH
    yeah well that's not how we operate, I suggest making recomendations on how we do things. Like, breaking down the proposals into month so it can be downvoted. If you have a deadline to pay for something, then submit the proposal 2 cycles before the deadline.
     
  11. billyjoeallen

    billyjoeallen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The problem is that MNOs would still bear the risk of sunk costs, just not all at once. It is possible to shift all the risk to solution providers and just because we haven't done it yet doesn't mean we can't or that a protocol change would be required to implement it. It would just take MNO organization. Obviously there are risks in changing our method of operation so substantially, but this is not an all-or-nothing idea. We could start with one goal/prize and adapt/expand the concept as warranted over time. Considering how far Dash has dropped in Market Cap/Market share, we have to ask ourselves if doing things the same way carries more risk than trying something new.
     
  12. Unstoppable

    Unstoppable Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2018
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    58
    The lack of community involvement in this thread is surprising and disappointing. I anticipated a lot of participation with some interesting input. Perhaps it is taking place on other channels.

    @Arthyron, it should be clear from my post and post history that I'm pragmatic, and approaching this pragmatically, and not pushing for decentralization simply for the sake of decentralization. It feels like something of a low blow for you to characterize me as a simple idealogue. Also, there are no bonus points for extra-wordy posts.

    I have nothing more to add on the subject, so I'll step aside again and await the community to discuss this further should it choose to, lest this become an echo chamber.
     
  13. Arthyron

    Arthyron Active Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    103
    @Unstoppable -- I wasn't accusing you of being an ideologue, though I can see how and why you might come to that conclusion--wasn't my intent. I mentioned you to bring up the topic since you introduced it and I did note that I tend to favor decentralization myself all things considered. I just wanted to address the general tendency toward idealism regarding decentralization rhetorically. That part should have been a new paragraph.

    As far as lack of activity, most people don't post here anymore, are more active on the other platforms. Hopefully Nexus will bring a renewed interest and activity to more static forms of discussion. Some topics just work better in a forum format.
     
  14. DeepBlue

    DeepBlue Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2018
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    58
    @untoppable thank you for your email notice about this thread.
    For the past 6 months I have been raising questions and asking for more information in the core proposals in an attempt to better understand how they are set up, and how the funds are being used so that I can properly fulfill my role as MNO however, until very recently, I have either been stonewalled or I’ve received feedback from other MNOs who are protecting core and wish to silence me.

    One of the primary roles of a MNO is decentralized governance of DASH. This involves a process where the MNO casts a vote to determine how treasury funds are best spent on proposals.

    In order for us to fulfill our governance role correctly and cast the right vote, we need to understand how exactly is the money going to be spent. We also need to, therefore, understand who is going to be using the funds and how they intend to use those funds. Our role is also to make suggestions, criticisms and provide feedback to the project owners if we see a more optimal way in which those funds could be used. We cannot fulfill our role as an MNO unless we have the information we need to make solid, informed business decisions.

    Nowhere in the above definition, or in fact anywhere I can see online does it say we should not challenge, question and demand the same standards of core proposals as we expect from any other proposal. In fact shouldn't core be setting the example for all other proposal owners? What kind of example are they setting when they do not listen to, or answer our questions?

    Surely core should set a higher standard than everyone else when it comes to their proposals?

    Nowhere does it say that we “rubber stamp” core proposals without question, debate, or constructive feedback.

    The important point here is we *cannot provide constructive feedback unless our requests for information are answered by the proposal owners*.

    Since we are unable to gather the information we need then we cannot, therefore, make informed decisions about how funds should be spent on core projects.

    Before we suggest any changes to the core set up we must first fully understand the core set up. However, we cannot understand the core set up unless our questions are answered. Therefore the first stage is to get all our requests for information answered in the core proposals.

    However, I have received unprecedented resistance when I have attempted to ask questions in the core proposals. I was amazed to see practically no MNOs where requesting information from the core team (until recently).

    For the last 6 months, I’ve been asking questions in core proposals with little to no reply to my questions. Until very recently core mainly ignored my requests for information in their proposals. I'm encouraged to see however that Glenn Austin is beginning to respond to questions in the core proposals. However, my main objection is not with the core team but with the MNOs themselves protecting the core team.

    Core need to also respond to our questions however currently they do not feel the obligation to respond because MNOs keep stepping in to shield them.

    MNOs need to stop protecting core and start asking questions to spark debate and dialogue with core. If we all started asking questions they will have to respond.

    Here are some of the comments from other MNOs why I should not be asking questions in the core proposals. I have also included ways in which MNO responses have attempted to dissuade me from making constructive comments or put down my comments by putting a negative spin on them.

    Here is just a small list of objections and negativity I’ve received over the last 6 months regarding requests for information I've made in core projects. There are in fact many more but this is just a sample:

    1. Stonewalling i.e. no response whatsoever from the proposal owners to my questions on the proposal. (A: Hello? is anyone there? What are you saying to me by not answering my questions? )
    2. Core have more important things to do than to respond to my questions. (A: But they have enough time to make a posting to request funds... funds which I have made a major contribution to)
    3. The proposals are not the right place to be posting these questions here. (A: This is exactly the right place to post questions about the proposals IF the proposal owner is not responding)
    4. Posting long replies to comments is not unhelpful and the wrong place. (A: The post is as long or as short as is necessary to effectively get the message across)
    5. We cannot “rip apart a finely tuned organization” without consequences (A: I agree, but I'm not trying to rip apart core, I'm trying to get answers to questions then decide what we should do and then install a time frame where core are not "ripped apart". If the questions are not forthcoming however "ripping apart" core may be our only option)
    6. What is my “beef” with core? (A: I don't have a beef with core, I'm attempting to fulfil my role as an MNO. I also dislike that phrase being a Vegan :) )
    7. Core PR is essential to take work away from the core team so that they can continue to focus on their work. (A: No, the role of PR is to raise positive messages through the media to the public about our project, not to take work away from core. It should be called something else if that is what its primary role is )
    8. I have misunderstood what core is about and what this proposal is about. (A: Perhaps, but I can't understand what core is without asking questions and getting those answers)
    9. We should trust Ryan Taylor (or whoever the MNO is protecting) (A: it is not about trust. Of course I trust Ryan Taylor et al. It is about making intelligent decisions and understanding what we are voting for, then making positive contributions for improvements)
    10. I feel we should “spoil core” by X (A: this is plain favouritism, I could not imagine anyone saying that in any other proposal. Core are not driven by money anyway. They are driven by a mission. If it came to it I know our core team would work for nothing. They believe in what they are doing. Just as we do.)
    11. Negative put-downs in how some MNOs respond e.g. “ I don't’ fundamentally disagree with your point X BUT...” (A: Could we phrase this in a more positive way perhaps?
    When someone says I don’t disagree with your point they are attempting to frame a positive contribution in a negative way. It would be more constructive for MNOs to say precisely what they agree with and what they don’t agree with. e.g. I agree with your point X but I don’t agree with your point Y. To phrase in a negative way such as “I don’t disagree with X is an attempt to put a negative spin on a positive contribution or to make the contribution look of less value than it is.
    12. Core have already explained this and made it publicly known you should visit this page: X, Y, Z - Then when I take the time to actually visit and read the page referred to I still cannot find the information I need. (A: core did not make it clear and the chosen communication route was not effective)
    13. Your comments about core are patronizing. (A: who, exactly thinks they are patronizing? )
    14. “Macho” challenges to the core team are not welcome. (A: There is nothing macho about doing what is right and fulfilling our role as MNOs)
    etc etc etc..

    These are just a small sample of the repeated and ongoing barrage of negative comments I've personally been subjected to when trying to get the information I need to be able to properly fulfil my role as MNO on the core proposals. A barrage of resistance and negativity.

    Yet my comments, questions, and feedback in any other non-core proposal are welcomed as constructive. What is the word or phrase for expecting one standard of others but then not meeting those standards for yourself? Hypocritical perhaps? or perhaps "double standards"? if we wish to be politically correct.

    Core themselves rarely responded to my questions knowing full well that the faithful, core-loving MNOs, will step in and valiantly protect them.

    "Yes, sign me up for some core-loving brownie points and here is my faithful no thought, rubber-stamp vote. I LOVE the core! Hooya!"


    Joking aside, before we make any suggested changes to core we first most surely stop protecting core, and rubber-stamping their proposals in? We as MNOs, need to fulfil our role whether it is a core proposal or not. We must start asking intelligent questions to understand how the treasury funds are being spent exactly and determine if there could be a more efficient way to spend those funds.

    I notice today DASH has dropped to 15th place in market cap below Ethereum Classic. The fact is that DASH is on a downward trend. To have a chance to reverse this we must become more efficient. Smart technology alone e.g. Evolution is not going to save DASH. We must give the very best for our money as we possibly can and work as efficiently and intelligently as we can. We also need to start putting more funds into projects that are leading to results *now*. Results that are leading to real users - now. Not in the future. I am specifically thinking of the Venezuela projects and the other LATAM projects. We need as much money as we can injected into those types of projects.

    Core is a major player in how our funds are being used we must ensure that it is being used optimally and we cannot continue as we are. We must fulfil our roles as MNOs and stop protecting core and do our job as we do with any other proposal.

    Before I am in a position to intelligently provide feedback as to what we should do I need to understand the core set-up and what they are doing with our funds and I cannot do that unless MNOs stop repeatedly protecting core. We also need to get core to start responding to questions on each of their roles.

    Therefore I think the first step is to suggest that the different core roles be first identified and then we request to split up into different funding proposals each of these roles. One proposal for each function of core. In this way, we can start to raise specific questions of the function of core for that role so that we can better understand it.

    I think it is unwise to vote out a core role until we actually fully understand its role, how it interacts with other core divisions, and how the money is to be spent within that core function. Therefore I suggest the first step is to separate out the different core functions that could potentially operate as separate entities e.g. Marketing, Business Development, Strategy etc and each should have its own funding proposal. This way we can for the first time start entering into debate with core and question each division of core and understand it more clearly.

    Zero tolerance to goading, trolls, bating and flames.
    I wish also to raise a point regarding goading, trolling and put downs I've been receiving from some members. From now on I have decided I will no longer respond to posts where the individual is intending to goad me, or try to directly or indirectly attack my person or character. Period. They either respond with intelligent constructive debate or I will simply not respond to that individual. I prefer to give my time and energy to positive contributors. People are free to criticise my logic in a constructive way but I will not respond to goading, trolling, bating, or backhanded negative slap downs. In addition if individuals continue with that style of response I will simply ignore and not read any of their future posts whether constructive or otherwise.
     
    #14 DeepBlue, Aug 5, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Unstoppable

    Unstoppable Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2018
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    58
    @DeepBlue, can you post here your yet-to-be answered questions?

    I believe we can be supportive of core, and happy with their accomplishments thus far, yet it is still our responsibility to keep them transparent, accountable, and efficient. Treating core with kid gloves and white knighting them may give core the impression they don't need to be as responsive as they should be. As proposal owners, they ought to be responsive to MNOs as much as any other proposal owner. Obviously, we cannot monopolize their time, but some level of communication here regarding proposals is deserved.

    That said, it seems with the leadership roles filled they have become more responsive, and I think that will continue to improve. @glennaustin seems to have gotten his footing and we are no longer so far behind the curve, even though we are now contending with a very strong bear market, putting a lot of pressure on the budget. @Ryan Taylor has mentioned that with the leadership roles filled he will be free to do more external communication. I believe we deserve to be counted as such, here, on the forums.

    In this thread I suggested that core at least identify essential vs non-essential functions and submit separate proposals for each, which would be a half-step to what you suggest above, yet still a step in the right direction:
    https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/core-team-compensation-september.39897/

    The quote function doesn't seem to be working for me today, so I'll just paste it here:

    "As dashbreaker suggests, can you group essential personnel and non-essential personnel?
    Admittedly sitting outside of core as we are, it appears to me anyone who is not a dev, or directly involved in managing and serving them would be considered non-essential, such as Business Development, Marketing, and International Outreach. In the future, it may be good to have two separate compensation proposals: one for essential, and one for non-essential.

    This would also help define what is truly core and what is not. I'm aware this is not a fun exercise, but may have to be prepared to cut nearly to the bone, should this bear market continue and/or worsen.

    The treasury system provides plenty of opportunity for passionate people to present themselves as business developers, marketers, and representatives globally. No need to duplicate those efforts in DCG. The treasury system has even given birth to dashboost and crowdfunding methods to assist those with sufficient passion yet without the funds to submit a proposal."

    I'll add here that the Dash Force Meetup Program is likely more effective in developing International Outreach than anyone DCG hires.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. DeepBlue

    DeepBlue Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2018
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    58
    @Unstoppable in order to separate the core functions into separate funding proposals so that we can better ask questions on each of those core proposals we need to understand the interactions between the core team and the interdependencies. This is what was posted in the latest funding cycle for core salaries.

    - Development - 30 staff
    - Leadership and Admin - 10 staff
    - Project Management - 4 staff
    - Strategy - 4 staff
    - Quality Assurance - 4 staff
    - Business Development - 3 staff
    - Marketing - 3 staff
    - Infrastructure - 2 staff
    - Support - 1 staff
    - Human Resources - 1 staff
    - International Outreach - 8 staff (part-time)


    The initial questions I would like to have answers to more clearly understand the basic functions of core;

    1. Leadership and Admin - can they be more specific about what they mean. Leadership of what? Admin for what? How many are leadership and how many are admin and what specifically are their roles?

    2. Project management - for what? Is this project management for core development? Core marketing? Core business development? What?

    3. Strategy - 4 staff. Strategy for what exactly? Development? Marketing? Business Development? Are the Strategy people working full time on strategy? That seems a lot to me - what exactly are these people doing?

    4. Marketing: What has marketing specifically achieved with our last funds which we gave 1200 DASH? What projects exactly are marketing working on? How is that funding being used? What are the proposed strategies for marketing? What role does Marketing have with Wachsman PR?

    5. How much money is going to each function of core e.g. for Marketing? Development? Project management etc. Provide a breakdown of funds for each.

    6. How do each of the individual roles of core interact with each other, what are the dependencies of one function of core compared to another function of core. We need to know this so that we can determine what would happen if we wanted to replace or improve a function of core and what the knock on effects would have.

    7. International outreach - where are these people situated? What are they doing? How much money are they receiving? How is compensation calculated for each of these people? When they say part time how much time is being spent? Is compensation calculate on an hourly rate? What criteria determine the amount of funding for each outreach person? What have the outreach people achieved? How is ROI determined on these outreach projects. Who does outreach report to in core? Who co-ordinates their activities?

    8. Business development. What have their achieved since Bradley Zastro took over? What is BD strategy? What inroads and where are they going? What new and future business partnerships are planned that they can disclose. If they cannot disclose details can they disclose generic details so we have enough information to determine the efficiency of this team?

    9. Are core prepared to split up each core function into separate funding proposals so that we can better ask more focused questions regarding that function? If not why not?

    10. There was mention of "benefits" being given out to core. How much in benefits to each person? What are these benefits and how much will these benefits be worth per year?


    These are preliminary questions I would be interested in getting answers to so that I can start to fulfil my role as MNO with core projects. If they answer these questions it will generate more questions and debate and we can then start to contribute our experience, feedback and knowledge to these core proposals making them better and more efficient. We may also be able to free up funding for other proposals - as we did with Craig Mason's suggestion to core on a tax payment plan.
     
    #16 DeepBlue, Aug 5, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. dASHBREAKER

    dASHBREAKER New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    If that's not an accusation of being an ideologue I don't know what is.

    IMO you quickly burn credibility when you furiously backpedal from your go-to schtick of armchair psychoanalytical characterization put-downs immediately upon being called out for such.

    And before your knee-jerk self-absolution kicks in...No, I am not impressed nor convinced by the weak tea "seem to" qualifier, because due to the frequency of your deploying the "ideological" put-down, it became diluted into meaninglessness.
     
  18. Arthyron

    Arthyron Active Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    103
    I also value decentralization on an ideological level. You can value an ideology or value something ideologically without being an ideologue (i.e. driven by ideology or acting in accordance with ideology for the sake of ideology instead of utilizing ideology toward a desired end). If saying that someone values something as an ideology makes them an ideologue, then I would be calling myself an ideologue too. In situations in which what is written is not what is perceived, it's appropriate to clarify. Clarifying intent is not back-pedaling. I'm afraid I don't understand the latter half of your post other than as an attempt to leave me no room for response, though it's hard to tell...
     
  19. Unstoppable

    Unstoppable Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2018
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Dash community, this is not a fun subject, but ignoring this problem will not make it go away. Please engage and contribute. I know we have the most intelligent, rational, and level-headed crypto community out there.

    At this time, we are awaiting clarification from DCG on their organizational structure. The more they share and engage with us, the better we can fine tune DCG to survive this bear market. Above all, I want to make sure our devs don't walk. Second, I don't want to lose our captains.

    In the unfortunate possibility that DCG does not engage with us, we have no choice but to forge ahead without their input. Obviously, this is not optimal, but we have given them the opportunity, and they still have time.

    My current opinion is this: Three compensation proposals, each reflecting full pay and benefits.

    1. Critical staff:
    All Devs
    The CEO, CFO, and CTO, not including their admins
    HR
    Infrastructure

    2. Essential staff:
    One Project Manager
    One QA
    Support

    3. Non-essential staff:
    Remaining Leadership and Admins
    Remaining Project Managers
    Strategy
    Remaining QA
    Business Development
    Marketing
    International Outreach

    Essential and non-essential could probably be argued indefinitely, so I won't bother defending it. If someone is really passionate about their breakdown of it, I'm fine with that. But I'll take a moment here to explain my definition of critical.

    Devs: No explanation necessary
    CEO, CFO, and CTO: They are the ones steering this ship now. They defend the organization from outside political and legal attacks, keep the books straight, keep us out of trouble with the IRS. The devs also need someone keeping the orchestra on the same sheet of music.
    HR: Ensures the devs get their paychecks and benefits, deals with issues that arise therein.
    Infrastructure: I'm making the assumption this is an on site facilities guy and an all-purpose IT guy. You will not get through the week without these guys. If that is not how they define it, well, let's define it this way.

    My goal here is to save the Critical group from defunding. If we MNOs can reach agreement on this sort of structure, I will submit the proposal this cycle, with the expectation that should it pass, Glenn's very next compensation proposals reflect this structure. If necessary, I'll pay for it out of my own pocket.

    While we wait for DCG to engage us in a meaningful way, let's get this going in parallel. Fire away, fellow dashers.
     
    #19 Unstoppable, Aug 8, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2018
    • Useful Useful x 1

Share This Page