Thank you for this thoughtful answer!
I agree, having a budget or not is a decisive difference.
Yes, I think I can accept that.
I’m a bit confused, though, about your assessment of the 3000 OP retroactive participation rewards for ACC members not being adequate.
It says here:
…that “While the Season 6 Collective Rewards Framework suggested 4,000 OP for the Anticapture Commission’s Impact Rating, rewards have been adjusted to 3,000 OP based on survey of ACC members about what their rewards for the Season should be. The Collective Rewards Framework has been updated to reflect this for Season 7.”
Also, an active top 100 delegate and member of the ACC might in Season 6 get 4000 OP for being an active delegate + 2000 OP for participating in reflection periods + 3000 OP for being an ACC member.
Compare that to the participation rewards of a highly engaged citizen which in Season 6 was 2000 OP for full participation in three separate retro funding rounds + 250 OP for voting on 70% or more of veto proposals.
The most hard-working reviewer (participating in all three retro rounds, reviewing more than 200 applications before the rounds) got 2120 OP for that.
It may well be a case of me simply lacking insight into the work of the ACC. Can you help me make sense of these things?
I don’t want to downplay the impact of the ACC. I’m simply trying to understand what’s fair, and how different kinds of work should be evaluated within the ‘impact = profit’ framework.
The question of how to reward leads is a separate one, I think. It is definitely worth considering, but I don’t think RPGF - given to the entire council - is the best way to reward council leads.