Honestly, I don’t have a strongly consolidated opinion on this matter. This change won’t make me vote against the proposal on Tally, but it does raise some questions, which I’ll outline for discussion.
I do agree with rewarding the drafting and execution of proposals when the proposal gets approved on Tally. It’s a task that requires significant time and effort, so it makes sense. And if there’s someone who works exceptionally well and deserves to be rewarded, it’s @JoJo
That said, this brings up several questions for me.
First, what is the appropriate amount to pay for this? What would be the right criteria? Should we consider setting a cap or criteria in the future?
Second, does it matter who drafts the proposal when deciding on payment approval? Let me explain. The proposal could be drafted by a contributor who is not directly involved in its execution—for instance, like Joseph with the ARDC—or it could be drafted by someone who directly benefits from its execution, such as Jojo in this case, given his role as PM. Should there be some differentiation in these cases?
Additionally, many proposals are drafted by delegates, and the DAO has already approved a compensation mechanism for that:
So, should delegates be encouraged to request payment when a compensation mechanism is outlined in the DIP? I understand that, in many cases, that 30% BP doesn’t reflect the actual cost in hours of work. But perhaps that’s how the DAO values this work when it’s carried out by delegates who are already incentivized in their role as active delegates.
These thoughts make me believe that we need a clear policy for this.
That being said, I support the proposed changes and will vote in favor on Tally.