Great timing on that post, and interesting, careful observations. We seem to be doing reasonably well so far and the recommendations in her conclusion certainly fit our ethos.
From the conclusion:
- Use a public application process for transparency and to leverage community knowledge
- Have a pre-proposal process to reduce noise
- Funding should come from community stakeholders (however that’s defined)
- No clear best practices on who should make funding decisions, but no major contentions yet, either. It’s unclear how well decision processes will hold up as projects scale and decline
Sounds like where we are headed, and it seems like eventually there should be some portal(s) (decentralize them) for submitting proposals so that people can look at them and discuss them on a rolling basis so that discussion on gitter, etc can be more focused. For the time being the mailing list and forum can (and have) been satisfying this, and I think as project grows and more proposals/needs start arising the structure will grow organically.
Sounds like what we’ve got going on so far should last a while. For UX I can imagine it might be nice to have a page where proposals are posted and people can fund each proposal directly, so a little bar of “how much raised” per proposal there is, with some pre-determined rule where a threshold has to be met and it if it isn’t a proportion of the funds go to the next proposal that is closest to reachign that threshold or something. That way some proposals slowly build up funding until they meet an amount where it can be acted on. That would to some extent satisfy the “funding should come from community stakeholders” part, under each proposal could be how much grin, monero, btc, is raised, and you can see which has the most grin etc and get a feel for who wants what.
Was surprised how loose monero seems to be about it, and if they can do it that way I’m sure grin can continue to build as it has been.