Discussion about moving some of the #ssbc-grants funds to an alternate Distribution Experiment

This is a fork of June SSBC Grants Thread

@Dominic's two posts sum it up:

(1)
I wanted to suggest that since we are still working out some stuff for the maintainence program and want to some budget left for that prehaps we should roll back to just two grants this month. Or we could make it 3, then two next month?

I wrote that then I slowly realized that while when we began the grants process I had said it was an experiment and we might change it later... but I never established what the means of making that change would be. Now the grants process feels like it has a lot of momentum because everyone expects it to continue.

discussions such as maintainence sprints... are certainly not resolved yet but are important.

(2)
@elavoie well I guess it really started during @matt's grant proposal last month - which caused us to realize that the grant format didn't suit quite a lot of the work that needs to be done.

We then discussed this in various threads: such as The Guild Maintainance Sprints Journeys and SSB Maintainance

(and the #guild tag) this train of thought also led to the Village Issue Tracker idea

This is me Dan speaking again.

TL;DR FWIW I support earmarking funds for an alternate distribution experiment

Also -

I had understood the current #ssbc-grants process as an experiment. IMO the data gathered in Dev-Diary Meta Thread provides an excellent source of data which can teach us more about this style of funding distribution.

FWIW I support earmarking funds for a different experimental form of funding distribution. I have noticed that a number of long term contributors to the protocol and ecosystem have struggled with this form of funding, which is interesting. Different strokes for different folks. I think it would be interesting to see if one of the alternate distribution modes creates more of a good time for those folx.

I guess the question would be how many other experimental distribution modes can fit within the earmarked funds - my gut says one (as in a larger pot, using the same experimental form so as to gather more data and experiences for that one mode - similar to what we have with the current funding).

It's really useful to note @elavoie was surprised. Really good to know that we've got divergent understanding / expectation.

To share my experience - I've been involved in discussing many of the grants and resourcing maintenance so I think I have a view across topics and needs that others might not have. This is also really important to remember. How do we figure out who should know what and where we update expectations and and what time scales

I think it's in the initial post in this thread, but a reminder that of the original 200k, we're likely not going to put all of it on these grants, and perhaps put 40k (or something?) to support maintenance (which has emerged as a need which feels seperate to grants type funding).

A few of us had a call about this but there's been no further clear coordination on this yet (that I've seen/ heard), so I feel we're in an awkward inbetween.

I copy-paste what @elavoie said

@Alanna did the work of pulling together a sheet of all the grants that have been awarded (if not payed out) : https://oasis.sandstorm.io/grain/q8xtCiyERXCP9qbKhaRBp6/

Summary : 27 grants = $135k USD spent

Proposal

I am proposing (since Dominic hasn't been able to get to this, and is now travelling):

• we set aside $40k for maintenance.
• with the remaining $25k, we do :
  • up to 3 grants in July
  • the remaining amount over the next month(s)

@andrestaltz how many grants decisions have you done? I'd like to propose you do it again this month, or that you and I (and Dominic if he's accessible) decide on someone to pass it on to someone we trust.

@mix sounds like a good plan. So far I've been adjudicator for 2 months, and overall 6 grants awarded. I'm fine to do it again, or to pass it on. Either way is fine by me