We would need to find some kind of balance. Cryptocurrency foundations often publish how much is spent on dev, but not necessarily how much goes to each individual developer. That’s harder with grin because we don’t have many people on the payroll.
Maybe the best we can do is allow some private funding requests, and still include them in the spending reports? This offers transparency while minimizing attention drawn to the request by requiring the forum post, open discussion, and a public vote?
I’m not real sure. I’m just thinking out loud here, since I figure this is the time to make as many improvements to our current spending approach as we can. The previous system has failed to attract outside developers, which has been a huge disappointment. I’m trying to figure out why it failed, and what we can do to change that.
Possibly? Gut feeling alone tells me that 2 separate funds trying to cover the same space could lead to problems. What happens if the majority of requests go to just 1 of the 2 funds for whatever reason? What happens if one of the councils chooses to be closed-fisted and not fund reasonable requests when they know the other council will (and they can therefore keep funds for their own special interests)?
Would either of those situations be problematic, or is okay if it works out that way? I just want to avoid rushing into a split like this if it ends up causing unforeseen issues.
It was my convoluted way of saying that making the process prolonged or difficult by potentially requiring them to submit 2 funding requests would be a situation we’d want to avoid if we can. We want to try to remove any unnecessary roadblocks to getting contributors funded, while still avoiding misuse of funds. It’s why I thought maybe smaller autonomous teams with clearer goals would be better, since they would possibly have a better chance of reaching those who aren’t covered in our current system.