The proposed increase in funding was not explained well enough.

Possibly. How autonomous is Rob? GRC is his baby, really. How much hassle is this point worth? It depends on how unreasonable people think the decision was, but then you get into voting someone off the island, or micro-managing their decisions. That quickly becomes a disruptive power play.

Who determines what work is worth pay and how long a job should take?

This probably depends on what the work is. Some of it will not have set hours, because it would take discovery, and exploratory testing. For tasks, the bounty-bot idea would solve most of this. Whomever or whatever releases the funds would determine it.

Create a standardized invoice form and a separate thread for posting only reimbursement data. If a dev does not use the standardized invoice form, they cannot receive reimbursement for those hours.

I like the idea of something like Toggl, because it is simple and managed for people. Even a shared spreadsheet somewhere could be useful. Ultimately, it's up to whomever is doing the payment billing and processing.

State that work data is due by the 7th day of the following month. This means that if I work in April, I must submit my hours by May 7th. If I do not, I cannot receive reimbursement for April.

7 days is too short. I think a month would be reasonable. With @barton26's reply below that it's an average for the month, abuse concerns may no longer be a worry.

State that only work for implemented developments will be reimbursed.

I vehemently disagree. There will always be code that gets dumped because it seemed like a good idea, but just did not work as expected.

I do not think that unimplemented developments should be reimbursed at $60/hr, or at all. This is a major concern of mine.

Remember, a large amount of dev time is simply not billed. I think if you insert auditing and micro-managing into this, it will not save GRC, and will just generate useless work. Maybe if we end up with problems in the future, but the current devs seem to be trustworthy.

Additionally, the poll and proposal itself is... lacking. What did we do? Why are we doing what we're doing? What will we do in the future? What happens if this raise is rejected? Do we not pay developers? Do we maintain $30 an hour?

This is all documented in GIT, with conversations in the chat forums (Slack, Rocket). I think there are posts in various places with partial summaries, etc. I think what you're saying here is that we need a way to generate executive overviews, and maybe quarterly or semi-annual summaries?

If I recall correctly, you recently proposed something like this as a paid resource. I think if it were hourly, or per report, maybe, but it would depend on the community demand for it. It may be that there is enough already.

Here is what I said in July when the initial proposal was put forward:

I can see valid concerns in that commentary. I see different types of coding though. I think break/fix, refactoring, and overall code maintenance would not really work the way y ou're proposing.

Feature enhancements via a bounty system would probably fit in your vision. It's something strongly supported by the devs and the community.

Moving Forward

I see many proposals, and see problems with them all. The discussions will stay in the proposal posts for my comments there.

I think this whole section is way too much structure for where we are right now. I think some architectural changes that may happen in 2018 might negate some of the needs, or change how they are presented.

Deciding exactly how to burn all of the GRC maybe could be backed off until the basics of taxation or foundation earnings can be sorted out.

Do we want taxation and a foundation wallet at all? That's a very centralized structure, and is sort of counter to the concept of cryptocurrencies.

Decentralization of the funds is probably a keystone idea. Long term, I envision the long-term system being something where dev pay would come directly from minted coins and something similar to the current "Neural Network".

Voting on key efforts, individually, might also be important, rather than trying to make an all-in-one plan. Not just code dev, but Executive Summary documents, or marketing, or graphic design, or etc. Perhaps no one cares about new icons enough to dilute the currency by paying for the work. or maybe people absolutely need them. etc etc.