Term Based vs Permanent Working Arrangements
Comparing term based and permanent working arrangements when doing a contributor funding model
A contributor could be funded for a fixed term, such as 6 months.
- Reduces risk by allocating a smaller fixed amount of funding to contributors who may have yet to prove they will provide a high impact.
- Increased risk of having constant change of contributors which could lead to a lack of in depth knowledge of the ecosystem.
- Current funding model is better suited to introduction of term based funding as it can be added into existing process.
The contributor is paid to work full time with a full time contract and repeatedly gets funded until they leave or are dismissed from their duties.
- Requires more assurances that the candidate will be an impactful contributor as if not a process for dismissal is needed.
- Provides stability to the contributor which could attract more people into the roles as there is a safety in being able to produce an income.
- There is more simplicity in using a term based employment of 6 months at the moment.
- To mitigate the risk of the changing contributors one thing to consider is contributors as a collective can manage a Catalyst contributor treasury that would come from the main Cardano treasury. This pot can be used to fund other tasks and people in the community. This could help keep people employed in the ecosystem as if they didn't get voted in for a particular fund then the contributors could vote to fund them through the contributors own managed funding treasury.
- The length of the term can be explored more in the future, some roles may be better suited for 3 months and other 12 months depending on what work they are focussed on. In either scenario the contributors can set aside money for specific tasks for more of a gig economy style of income for those that prefer that. Iteration in these areas should provide a good coverage of catering for how different contributors want to work within the ecosystem.