The Governance Guild is considering proposing several changes to the current incentive structure of the Ambassador program - probably things like a) additional levels of ambassadors to distinguish contributions deemed more valuable, b) changed allocation/vesting schedules to be more back-weighted or at least even, c) make Ambassadorship, and any levels including Lead, less permanent. (This is not a comprehensive list, but should make it clear we are talking about material changes to the incentive structure and rewards under the program.)
There will be topics here to discuss all of the important changes, but I also want to discuss the idea of changing it at all, and whether or not that seems acceptable to the community and particularly to the existing Ambassadors, since we would be directly impacted by the change.
I don’t think it would be acceptable or fair for Labs to try to impose changes like this, but I do think it would be okay for the Ambassadors to agree to make changes.
We need to consider the signal / precedent a move like this would sets, and should also determine now whether we think this would be a one-time change, or do we think that it is important to have adaptable and responsive incentive structures that can changed over time?
A few key questions that I am considering are:
- What do you think about this in general? Should incentives be immutable? Mutable but with very strict parameters that could be adjusted? Flexible, with enough consensus?
- What is a fair way to manage these things with present / past / future Ambassadors, and the community in general in mind?
- What is the right level of consent to have this be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the community at large? Would it have to be unanimous acceptance of new terms by every single existing and past Ambassador? Would it be fair if one person could hold everyone else ack? Would a 2/3+1 supermajority be sufficient? 80% supermajority, or 90%? Simple majority?