In theory, yes. In practice, we’ve seen something a bit different. For example, from the current OpCo proposal:
Given the timing of budget submissions, we’re often left with a binary choice–approve the proposal as it stands or face dire consequences. If alternatives are proposed, they are rushed by necessity. We saw this in [BIP-XXX] Orb Collective SP Offboarding and [BIP-XXX] - Orb Collective - Moving Forward - #49 by Tritium.
If the budget proposal moves forward as is, then the decision is often left in the hands of one large voter, Aura. If Aura’s vote is no, then a) this is a minority voice voting against the majority or b) this is a third party meddling with the sovereignty of SPs.
What the HR committee should seek to accomplish is to move budget decisions from a last-minute process to one that is ongoing. This will allow viable alternatives to be explored if necessary. If the vote still turns out to be no from a large voter, like Aura, then that was a decision that Aura made in conjunction with Balancer, not as an independent or minority opinion. Just these two functions alone give the HR committee some value worth considering.
We should be careful not to jump to conclusions. This is a temperature check, not a proposal. No entity has signaled that will be forcing this through. Even opinions we disagree with sometimes have merit and should be respected. Here, Fernando mentioned that this is a topic worth exploring. ZenDragon and Tritium, above, also seem to think so, myself as well. These are hardly random names. Even if nothing comes from this discussion, this discussion itself is important and worth having.
More broadly, I’d be interested in who you think constitutes our community. This is perhaps a separate discussion, but we’ve come a long way from last year’s vibrant forum discussions where there were many public voices chiming in on different topics. You’d be hard pressed to find any individual on the Balancer forum these days that’s not a paid contributor of Balancer or another financially interested protocol. There’s many factors at play here–proposal flooding, the general bear market, and the chilling nature of discussions, as I previously mentioned. But I like to think that we can start to turn this around with conversations exactly like the one we’re having now. If there’s an intellectually interesting topic worth exploring, let’s perhaps keep an open mind and give it a chance to breathe.
It’s important to clarify that this temp check is not targeted towards the Maxi proposal, which by and large, is measured and reasonable. The problems we’ve observed stem back to Orb, which set the standard for big budgets, low accountability. The lessons that we were supposed to learn from that experience is that budgets should be reasonable and oversight is important, yet application of those lessons has been difficult to achieve in practice.
If you read my answers to ZenDragon’s questions, above, I’m neither proposing an additional layer of bureaucracy, nor a centralized committee to make binding decisions. That’s not something I would support. Perhaps committee is an incorrect word choice here, a HR advisor or a HR consultant would perhaps be more apropos. We currently have only one individual guiding our legal program, so perhaps a committee isn’t even necessary; one advisor might be enough.
What we’re currently lacking is information. For example, how do we answer these questions in a vacuum?
For example, instead of people “thinking” or “suspecting” that Tritium is overpaid, forcing him to defend his work product, it would be more than helpful if there were a knowledgeable professional that could tell us, directly, that a 43 year old IT professional living in Germany with 10 years of experience working 50 hours/week should expect 100-120K/year. From there, we could then add a subjective premium on Tritium’s value to the ecosystem. That should end most discussions. If Tritium decides to proceed with an overinflated salary anyways, then voters now have enough information to make an informed decision.
Comparables across protocols would be quite helpful as well. For example, X similarly-sized protocol to Balancer recently did a website re-vamp in X months with X devs, with each dev making an average of X, which is the standard for our industry. I would personally find this type of information incredibly helpful, and I believe most voters would as well.
What I believe would be most beneficial, however, is that with this process in place, we no longer need to leave decisions to the last minute, and face down vote-or-die situations, like the one above. Projects or individuals themselves could consult with our HR professional ahead of time, understand what he or she is recommending, and bring their budgets and timelines in line with industry standards.
I think this is a great approach and should probably be in place already. My concerns with this are, and these are very similar to ZenDragon’s initial questions, which were:
For myself, committee composition is the most important aspect here, because I simply do not believe that self-monitoring or internal monitoring works effectively, no matter how good intentions are. Checks and balances is important, both in democratic and non-democratic organizations.