---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'DAOhaus Sustainability: The Mergening (6/14/22)'
tags: [sustainability, ' ops']

---

---
tags: sustainability, ops
---

# DAOhaus Sustainability: The Mergening (6/14/22)

## General Notes

- Do we want to start by factoring in the numbers/budget or with a broader approach?
    - [budget spreadsheet ](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13wKlN4u176S17vlfhMS9W0PMEkjMgBsuvwi5o9la-Vw/edit#gid=994067874)
    - Current budget/treasury/runway is a critical input into the conversation
- Look at a month's spending and what folks did and see how we're spending money, and then evaluate how the money has been/is being spent
    - Spencer/UI focused on building a process around aggregating the sentiment of the DAO without digging too deep in the weeds
- Work out our monthy budget based on value levels, committment %, and then move into the specifics
- Has sentiment changed over the weekend?
    - More support for actually setting a cap on our monthly burn
    - Series of votes related to this
    - Reallocation of resources and potentially lower them
    - Survivalist: last longer
    - All in: last shorter, but go all in on shipping
    - This is likely not a question that Warcamp has final say over (UberHaus and broader community would be involved)
    - Push and pull here based on impact on stakeholders
- Compensation impact how long we can go and achievability of the mission
- How we perform right now increases likelihood of additional funding
    - Attention on this but also on acquiring more resources
        - Scarcity shapes avenues of funding we'd be willing to pursue (broader than previous)
        - What are the weights/ratios we devote toward each workstream (product + revgen/funding)?
            - Share weighting this / projection system: "What are workstreams?"

## How are we merging?

Before getting into the details of how to handle one idea, how are we able to move forward with a cohesive idea?
- Projection reflection system and optimistic flagging system
- Big difference is robustness: minimalist vs. more robust system
    - Minimalist to start and then iterate toward more robust system
- Spencer/UI proposal has 3 main components:
    - 2 of these have a counterpart in other proposal:
        - 1) Buddy system/performance accountability and flagging system
        - 2) Survey the DAO and projection reflection 
    - 3) Changing the value level concept to market value levels and increasing to 10 levels
        - Objective benchmarks and market value levels
        - Increasing granularity to 1-10 introduced overhead to process
            - Gives folks steps that aren't as hugely impactful on their compensation
- **Value Levels:**
    - Want to experience upward mobility, and our chunky levels, combined with current status quo where folks are self-assigning, have led to everybody going into Cycle 4 with everyone self-reporting as a 4 or 5
    - Expanding the range and allowing folks to increase by smaller amounts allows for some movement and increases likelihood of distribution of skills/capabilities/etc
        - Core difference is that we're looking at the core team, and these folks would be 4s and 5s
    - Increasing the scale resolution (1-10) and adding articulation could increase likelihood of conversations that could lead to self-evaluations
- Flagging and dispute resolutions would be useful steps but we need to also balance overhead from new systems
    - How do we allocate the amount of time that current core contributors would spend on setting up a new process? Do we want to get to a stable place and *then* implement a new system?
    - In general we should strive for more minimalist, lighter solutions that address our current problems and needs, such as:
        - Flagging with dispute resolution is likely sufficient if people feel like they are capable of taking on the emotional challenge of flagging others
        - Put something like this in place with an eye toward more robust solutions moving forward

## Potential Synthesis Next Steps

- Projection: What does the DAO want to do?
    - Specific workstream to figure out the question and what the options are
- Reflection: We have (nearly) a month to reflect on spending
    - Do we need the individual projections and reflections?
        - This is what would be flagged
- **Flagging System**
    - Process and structure for this
    - Round this out for Cycle 5
    - Goal of any dispute resolution at this stage should be that someone submits a self-reflection of their role and committment, and then the goal could be to get an alternative proposal for the contributor that is agreed upon by the DAO and the contributor
- **Commitment Track**
    - Potentially extend levels from 5 to 10
- **Dispute Resolution**
- Next steps:
    - Explore other robust ideas and approaches
- Big questions:
    - Scope survey?
    - Overall less burn
    - Share weighting
    - Retro
        - What portion of our burn rate is available for Retroactive compensation?
        - Low lift solution - change to retro submitting individual proposals 
        - Collaborative discussion on pay requests 
        - no concrete plan, dicussion to continue 

### Next Steps 
- Ven to get circle 'leads' to get projection list together 
- Meeting to review and discuss 
- Have projections done by next monday for warcamp 