You seem to be fearing something that is not stated explicitly, could you expand on that?

@elavoie Apologies, I typed it quickly. Now I have a bit more time to expand.

I am thinking how to learn from this year's tensions that arose in the recent allocation of grants, where you set some constraints (deadlines, ways of working and reporting, even standards of living with regard to payment rates) that stemmed from your power over the Handshake Council and how stiff the whole thing became.

Wielding power is not a problem, the problem is sudden changes of power that were not agreed on. Sure, I have power with regards to Manyverse and its funds. Mikey/dinosaur had power with regards to Sunrise Choir. SoapDog has power with regards to Patchfox and its funds. Rabble has power with regards to Planetary and its funds. And so forth. But those are clear associations of power, while the Handshake Council had a specific agreement on how power is held, and you had a specific role in it as a neutral facilitator/gardener. To recap from your Gardener candidacy:

I won’t have decision power on the Budget, only Council members will be able to vote.

I won’t articulate Budget proposals either but I may give my opinion on how to improve them.
(...)
My responsibilities and the Council will terminate with the full spendings of the 85k Euros of the Handshake Grant.

This year, it seemed you suddenly switched from facilitator to something else that is more unilateral. This makes me question whether we can trust your pledges today, and (since we're talking about process for collectively-managed funds) whether we should try to make a more clear association of power for this specific bucket of money. For example, I am totally fine if there is a community vote on clearly transferring powers from the previous Handshake Council of 7 to only you. My concern is with the implicit shift of power. Since we're talking process and planning next steps, now is the time to have that conversation.

useful thread for understanding some of the tensions raised here: %wfw8rkj...

Y'all spell-casting is hard work, and dangerous.

I think I like Robin Hobb's idea of a "coterie" - a group who work closely to cast spells together. When I post a proposal, I've often discussed it out-of-band with a couple of butts or non-butts. This means the first presentation is often tempered and honed with their input. I'm not sure, but suspect @elavoie might be running a different model (keen to hear) which is putting his own first thinking up on scuttlebutt to clarify.

I'm reflecting on this thread and the dynamics between people here.

I think I'm sensing a bit of "jumping to a conclusion"... as in Elavoie has done some analysis (which he's shared) and then synthesised a possible path forward. The "jumping to the conclusion" bit is that I think perhaps people need to go through the analysis themselves, or with elavoie, otherwise we have bits of analysis popping up later while it looks like we're discussing synthesis. Maybe this can't be avoided. It's hard because proposing a solution definitely provokes reaction/ engagement, whereas organising a working group to analyse future pathways to grow scuttlebutt and it's people requires a lot more groundwork (I'm really keen on participating in something like that btw).
This is a pattern that's referenced in "Theory U" - you cannot shortcut the journey.

Keen to hear if this is a useful sensing or is an misplaced sense I have.
If it's useful, I think the proposal is is anyone interested in backing up and casting a larger spell as a coterie?

ok thinking on this more, I think I would like the community to have a conversation about "what we need" and "where we want to go". I've talked about this a little with @arj and @andrestaltz through bits of collaboration we've been doing.

we were in pretty strong agreement that at the moment it's a bit too hard for new people to get started. this problem is shaping what we're putting our attention towards

e.g.

mix

• talking with @zelf (sorry mention not working?) about if they're interested in doing more grant writing, and how we can resource them to continue to do great work. This lead to a conversation about helping @zelf build their first scuttlebutt app, and we will generate documentation through this process
• documenting which APIs ahau uses so arj knows what we need to be able to migrate towards ssb-db2 and meta-feeds. (see below)

arj

• working on mainstreaming meta-feeds, ssb-db2, and private groups (already in use, but getting them working with those new techs)
• helping support zelf's app as well
• working on 8k demo as a clear example app

staltz

• working on onboarding, replication (ebt most recently)
• fulltime manyverse atm

(I may have remembered these slightly wrong). But yeah I feel like I have a clear view of some blockers for people having a good time. Nothing that revolutionary or new - these are long standing challenges. But I feel like I want to integrate all of these things with this conversation about more reliable funding.

I want to know that we've all shared some perspectives before we funding things

agree with all your points @elavoie, I think you're right we should proceed.

I think what I'm holding nerves about is doing a round of "funding fun stuff" when there's a bunch of "funding foundational stuff" and that we have finite resources. It's good to recognise that personal fear (so I can figure it out myself, and adjust). I appreciate you being clear about what you don't have capacity for. I think likely I'm feeling called to host (or bring into being) that other conversation. I'd like the learning from that conversation to perhaps influence this experiment, but lets see how things emerge

I have tried to write my thoughts on this a couple of times but it's difficult because my feelings are really mixed and I'm not sure if anyone cares. But I have a concrete amendment I'd like to propose, so it's probably worth stating where I'm coming from.

• I don't like the wide range of responsibility and potential for abuse this scheme gives the Overseer. "Handling unforseen problems" could be abused easily imo.
• I wish we had a better proof-of-community-membership scheme than $20 USD
• I wish there was compensation for the Overseer(s) built in. It seems the main problem with the Handshake council was that council members got too busy to make decisions in a timely manner. Paying council members would likely have resulted in more commitment/participation.
• The proposal feels rushed. Many people have expressed desire to take a different path but nobody seems to be able or willing to lead us down a different path.

But on the other hand.

• I like and trust @elavoie. The fact that he is planning to make a very large personal donation in addition to the time he is offering to donate is very generous and is proof of the value he sees in this community.
• I like the idea of the community continuing to vote on and fund proposals.
• I don't see another concrete alternative for the near future.

For these reasons I'm throwing in my $20 and voting to go forward with this. Thank you @elavoie for all your hard work on this.

Proposed Amendment

If it isn't too late to make amendments I'd like to propose that the Overseer takes a token salary for this round. As I described above I think the biggest issue with the Handshake council was lack of time on the part of the council members. Having some compensation set aside for those running the process would move the needle towards sustainability.

This may seem kind of moot this year considering @elavoie is the only proposed Overseer and he is personally donating far more than the proposed compensation. But I think it sets a good precedent. It feels weird throwing a concrete number out there but I want this to be a concrete amendment so I guess I will do that.

I propose that the Overseer takes a token salary of $500 USD for overseeing this year's community funding. In addition, they should track the hours they put towards the project to better inform next year's process.

@andrestaltz ah thank you for pointing that out, I totally missed that fact. I guess my proposal of $500 wouldn't have even met the levels of compensation used previously.

@elavoie thank you for you willingness to bootstrap. And I suppose I should thank Society and the good citizens of Switzerland too 😄.