[Org Design] Funding Core Teams: Principles & Criteria [Part 2]

Funding Core Teams: Principles & Criteria [Part 2]

Background

We believe that a standard set of criteria should be used in making decisions with regard to onboarding, re-funding, and de-funding Core Team work. This simple set of criteria aims at holding Core Teams accountable for the work they have set out to do, while minimizing a potential “gatekeeping” function. The criteria also enables fairer, consistent assessment - by whatever entity or group to be determined - across all core work.

It’s important to note that this criteria is solely for funding decisions related to core development work (e.g. work currently scoped by the Radicle Core Teams). While it could be applied DAO-wide as a way to evaluate funding decisions, the goal here is to develop a set of criteria that the “MVDAO” can use to guide and manage Core team work.

Evaluation of Criteria

We believe that these criteria shouldn’t be a process of “checking boxes”. Based on our proposed organizational principles, we believe the healthiest way to apply a standardized set of critera across Core Teams with varying types of work is to base evaluation off of an aggregated collective opinion. We propose these criteria to be evaluated on a numerical scale.

Further, we believe that each criterium must have a “tool” that can be employed to ensure evaluation is consistent and as objective as possible. The collective creation of these tools (they can also be considered rules) ensure that decision-making processes are transaprent and well-understood — not convoluted and done behind closed doors.

Application of Criteria

Onboarding/Offboarding

:seedling: Assumption: Core Teams should be funded if their work is mission-aligned, aligned with our technical principles, has high impact, and if the “MVDAO” has conviction that they can do it well.

We can envision a decision to onboard/offboard being based off an evaluation of the following 5 criteria.

  • Mission/Purpose Alignment
    • Question: Does the work align with the project-wide Radicle mission — a static, high level, long-term purpose for the Radicle project?
    • Tool: Radicle Mission/Purpose Document (currently forming from vision initiative from @thom and @abbey)
  • Principles Alignment
  • Impact
    • Question: How does this work bring the Radicle project closer to its mission/help fulfill its purpose?
    • Tool: Radicle Mission/Purpose Document, Impact Evaluation (TBD)
  • Feasibility
    • Question: Is the proposed work doable and likely to be completed successfully as described in the proposal?
    • Tool: Technical Principles
  • Conviction
    • Question: Are these the best people to do this work? Can they do it?
    • Tool: Overview of Team (TBD)

:speech_balloon: Discussion Questions:

  • Are there any missing criteria? Should any be reworded?
  • What tools can we use to evaluate “softer” criteria (e.g. Impact, Conviction)?
  • What would be the best way to grade or score these criteria if the desired outcome is an aggregated collective opinion?

Accountability

Core Teams — after they have been initially onboarded to (funded by) the MVDAO — should be held accountable for their work and contributions within the organization. We believe these can be evaluated in the form of a regular “Health Check”, which is similar to the monthly check-in currently held by the Foundation Council with each Core Team. The health check is a way to lightly evaluate teams after they have been onbaorded — and trigger any potential need to offboard. We believe the health check measures

If a Core Team does not meet these criteria, then the decision to offboard can be triggered.

:speech_balloon: Discussion Questions:

  • What issues do you foresee with this kind of mechanism? Does a regular check-in with Core Teams address a need?
  • Is this scope of the Health Check able to surface issue areas and Core Team needs?
  • When is the decision to offboard made? What additional criteria are required? What are the mechanisms for recourse?

:mega: CALL TO ACTION: If you have opinions/thoughts on the criteria outlined above, please share them in this Discourse post by the end of the week. If there is time, we will start to discuss the criteria in the Organizational Principle Discussion scheduled for tomorrow @ 4:30pm CET. Add the call to your calendar here.

4 Likes

what is this referring to please ?

with different problem areas, like “open source funding” (drips / work-streams) and “code collaboration” (p2p-protocol, alt-clients), currently being tackled by Radicle core teams, is “project-wide” the right term to use here? I guess it all depends on terminology, but I see several different projects under the Radicle umbrella.

On a more general note, I think the main thing I am still missing is what entities will be responsible for applying this criteria. Entities - and, crucially, the people behind them - are extremely important because a lot of what we’re asking for here (evaluation of Impact, Conviction but even Feasibility) heavily relies on the human factor. It seems to me that these are decisions that only humans can make, so the humans we have in place to take those decisions can make all the difference.

1 Like