Guys, let’s put away the guns and sit back down lol.
I am as stressed as anyone else, it takes alot of work to get a proposal from draft to a completed vote.
This backfund is important because it solves multiple problems with some of the least drawbacks compared to other options.
The most common rebuttals have been around @abeltherebel 's comments, but I think we have shared enough context on why those drawbacks aren’t necessarily waterproof:
-
50m was an arbitrarily selected budget with very little demand data to know if that was the correct amount to allocate AND the working group for STIP 1 acknowledged this flaw and had backup plans, INCLUDING A BACKFUND
-
Backfunding does not mean that a round 2 does not happen. In fact, many members of STIP round 1 have been working really hard to make sure round 2 happens asap.
My main bone to pick is that the first STIP round 1 working group did not include a diverse selection of working group members:
Notice the participants and how the STIP round 1 format and budgeting favored certain projects.
We are doing our best to ensure that round 2 will include more voices to structure the next STIP so that it is inclusive and fair.
BUT - in the meantime, let’s get the projects who worked their ass off to reach quorum and have been waiting weeks now a solution.
Backfunding is an easy, less than perfect but better than alternatives, path that was already considered in the original STIP 1 proposal. Let’s get it done.