Contributor Guidelines Updates - Late Contributor Proposal Penalties

The following draft proposal outlines the start of a series of proposed adjustments the ContributorX is submitting to modify the current DXdao Contributor Guidelines. The purpose of this draft is to initiate discussion and reach consensus around new guidelines for:

  • Late contributor proposals penalties
  • Contributor proposal process
  • Trial period and onboarding
  • Contributor level changes

These proposals will be posted in individual forum posts as we believe each topic deserves attention and an opportunity for community discussion. This forum post will specifically focus on the Penalties for Late Contributor Proposals. We determined this would be the best topic to start with after receiving resounding feedback from the community for the need to implement clearer guidelines.

This guideline is based on information gathered from the community through a series of group discussions, 1:1 meetings, and surveys around whether or not contributors should be penalized for late proposals. Some key questions we asked were:

  1. Should there be a consequence for late contributor proposals?
  2. In what way should a contributor be penalized?
  3. Should contributors be temporarily removed from communication channels if they are late on their contributor proposals?
  4. What length of delay on a proposal should a contributor be penalized? (From period end)

Once the data gathering was completed, we were able to conclude that every contributor felt strongly that there should be some type of penalty for late proposals. Additionally, most contributors believed the primary areas of penalty should be compensation (stablecoin and DXD), REP, and temporary suspension of participation in communication channels.

As a result, it was determined that the following guideline best reflects the DXdao community’s opinions and preferences:

In the event a DXdao contributor is late on submitting their new contributor proposal by more than 2 months after their active proposal period ends, the following penalties will be incurred:

  • A 5% reduction in compensation (both stablecoin and DXD) for the 2 month late period.
    • For each additional month late, an additional 5% reduction in stablecoin and DXD will be incurred.
  • A 5% reduction in REP allocation for the 2 month late period.
    • For each additional month late an additional 5 % reduction of REP will be incurred
  • Temporary removal from ALL DXdao Keybase and private Discord chats until the worker proposal has been completed and passed on chain.

In the event there are extenuating circumstances, such as legal and regulatory restrictions, there must be a formal discussion and subsequent on-chain approval to bypass this guideline.

Penalties for late contributor proposals should always be a last resort. The goal of this proposal is to help ensure proposals are completed in a timely manner so as to not interfere with the DXdao governance process. In order to consistently adhere to this goal, the ContributorX will ensure proper late notifications are given and provide any additional support to contributors with their late proposals.

Upon review and on-chain approval of this proposal, it is requested to go into effect on January 1, 2023. Additionally, the ContributorX will be responsible for the implementation and tracking of these penalties.

Please note that this is a draft proposal and I encourage and welcome everyone to provide any suggestions or comments.

8 Likes

I want to explain the problem of late proposals and if that happens to be someone that is leading certain initiatives:

A squad might be dependant on a person to deliver something since he was leading certain initiatives. And suddenly, he veers off track and goes on to work on another product with no updates to the current squad. The squad is still waiting for deliverables from this person, but he is not delivering because he has “moved on”, but there is no proposal that confirms this. The new tasks could be that it is even more important to the DAO than the squad’s work. But it affects the squad that he was working on and still waiting for deliverables.

Retroactive proposals can indicate that a person has worked on a bunch of tasks, some could have been important, some could have been new product ideas, some fire fighting and eventually paid for by the DAO. But this doesnt indicate the uncertainty / stress / ton of rework that was created for the existing squad. The squad is not able to reach out to this person because there is no agreed worker proposal available and it creates unnecessary dilemma over if this person will be able to deliver what was promised or if the squad needs to look for new people to take over. Even if we reach out, the answer would be that they are busy with a lot of other things. The early proposal will create a binding contract to contribute or not to the squads. Almost 80% of the contributors dont have a worker proposal that is prior to the start date (mine included).

We need to do an analysis on why these are not being done beforehand? Is it because the contributors don’t have a clue what they would be working on? Is it taking long time to get a consensus offchain? Maybe I would request Melanie to reach out to some of our contributors that have been always late or always had retroactive proposals and ask them the actual reason why this has happened and we could help solve this.

Along with the update of contributor guidelines, I would prefer to update the goals of Level 7 and Level 8. They are supposed to be pushing for initiatives and have atleast 1 initiative along the lines of their work profile towards the DXDao goal / squad goal. For instance, if he is a developer at Level 8, he could possibly research / investigate topics around new DeFi tools and do a Lightning talk / pitch. If he is a Bizdev person, one initiative towards a potential partnership for DXdao to incubate on. And this could go for each of the domain area.

For levels 7 and 8, there should be very specific goals towards growth of DXdao and its products. Currently, there is no roadmap for what are the next products that DXDao is looking to build / incubate / support. The leads should be in a position to list the roadmap for DXDao’s suite of governance and products. Right now, if we look past the current set of products, there is hardly any idea that is being floated around that we should be building and it should be set as goals for all the contributors at Level 7 and 8.

Am against penalties, but I absolutely detest late proposals.

5 Likes

Indeed. There is also procrastination, and without proposals it’s hard to hold people accountable and tackle it.

2 Likes

This makes sense and lays out a clear solution. 5% seems fair and escalating it every month increases the urgency.

I do wonder about the enforceability of this:

I think the intention here is good, but there are no other processes for adding/removing people from private Keybase channels. In general, I support communication in the public keybase channels. I understand the need & desire for private channels, but management of those seems best left to squad leads rather than formal control by DXdao governance?

2 Likes