JUST’s contributions remain critical in the areas of ecosystem-wide coordination, governance operations, and OpenGov support. Currently, there are not a lot of teams that can provide the high standards of professionalism, expertise, and availability needed to address and resolve these types of issues round-the-clock in this decentralised community.
And so, there needs to be an established process for acknowledging and compensating teams like JUST in the long run. In the interim, the team will still need to have the option to access retroactive funding for its undertakings, because their work often goes well beyond the scope of the average treasury proposal with pre-determined milestones.
Dear Proposer,
Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.
The Medium Spender track requires 50% quorum and simple majority of non-abstain voters according to our voting policy. This proposal has received six aye and zero nay votes from ten members, with three members abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:
Several voters expressed their opinions on a proposal concerning two individuals known for their contributions to the community. While some cast affirmative votes, highlighting the value and support these individuals provided, others chose to abstain, citing concerns about the vagueness of the proposed scope of work and the implications of retroactive funding. Despite differing views, many acknowledged the genuine commitment and expertise of the individuals in question, emphasizing the importance of maintaining community standards and recognizing valuable contributions.
The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.
Kind regards,
Permanence DAO
Edited
We will be voting NAY on retroactive referenda of these characteristics, specifically of high value. To us, it is a better way to outline a plan of action to follow what deliveries were fulfilled and what deliveries were not fulfilled as opposed as this high value retroactive approach which leaves the specifics of the work done with the listed projects as an exercise to the reader and the inclusion of an honor system for reported work which will be abused by other teams if this became the norm.
For those two reasons we believe that this is not a "golden standard for retroactive referenda" as it was mentioned on AAG. So we would prefer that well known teams such as these one as well as newcomers take the non-retroactive route. This idea will be heavily enforced on our vote starting on cohort 4's term as described on our DV cohort 4 application: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/decentralized-voices-cohort-4-saxemberg/11868