yup, agreed with the comments above. I believe it’s great when grant committees develop relationships and become like BD’s, seeking new knowledge and different useful kinds of stuff that will be beneficial for the further development of Moonbeam. they build their strategy on how it works with projects, and if grant committee members really make their work incredibly effective, I don’t see any point in changing them. however, they still have to go through the voting process after 6 months, which doesn’t guarantee that they will be able to continue as further committee members. also, as practice shows, the more restrictions you set, the more problems will arise later. so, as I said, if the committee members are great and the community wants to vote for them, I don’t see the point in setting these limits
when the composition of the committee changes, new members will need to adapt to the specific nuances of the work, among other tasks. As a Rule, full adaptation can take a couple of months. If we were to have new committee members every six months, a significant portion of time would be spent simply on helping new members adopt a new direction, rather than on productive, full-fledged work
regarding the revision of the budget, it seems to be taken into account by the Foundation since previously the work of grant committee members was compensated at $3,500 / month. that is, it can be seen that this is taken into account
I completely agree with sik, when distributing ecosystem grants that exceed $250k, the community decides by voting. If community grants are also outsourced to the community, then the grant distribution process will probably take years because, based on the recently published Grants Committee Update #1 report, it can be seen that:
The MGP has received 298 applications and awarded 42 teams since its creation on Sep 13, 2022. This represents an approval rate of 12.2%. On average, the committee receives 8.4 applications per week.
It seems to me that involving the community in the decision-making process for such a large number of grant proposal streams is impossible and simply does not make sense. given that the grants committee members are chosen by the community, we can directly say that the community has fully entrusted the committee with making these decisions