💯

Poll Results on Strategies: People

❓On tight core groups vs fluid contributions, how to split among the employment structures? Team (5 strong yes to hire for permanent) Fellows (4 yes for 3-month renewals, full-time) Contributors (2 yes for 1-month renewals, 20-hour per week) DAO (5-of-9 governors for 3-month elections) Bounties (0 yes for 1-time engagement)
NameTeam (5 strong yes to hire for permanent)Fellows (3 yes for 3-month renewals, full-time)Contributors (2 yes for 1-month renewals, 20-hour per week)DAO (5-of-9 governors for 3-month elections)Bounties (0 yes for 1-time engagement)On tight core groups vs fluid contributions, how to split among the employment structures?*Name
🛡Rongjian
40
20
10
5
15
The closer the person is to the core, the more impact he/she should be able to make and we should focus more on them and enable them to make big impact and bring harmony to next level. It’s hard to count on contributors and DAO to bring harmony to next level. They are more in a supporting role.
🛡Rongjian
🏃Leo
20
50
10
10
10
fellow is the better way to decentralize the development and growth, core members will not be there forever, only a few years. we are not running a long term tech company in blockchain.
🏃Leo
🎽Li
0
30
20
40
10
Normally I write my own vote, but I think Leo’s sentiment captures what I want to say. I actually love the Fellows category. They are working and being compensated near the core team level but it is flexible on BOTH sides so that they can do their “tour of duty” with Harmony and keep building their careers in Web3 when they’ve done their mission here. Or they can always move into the core team if there’s alignment with all core initiatives. It’s just a great place to start and stay for most people.
🎽Li
🏏Ganesha
35
25
10
10
20
In the near term, we need a stronger team to execute and compete, while we keep working toward fully decentralizing the project (2-4 year goal)
🏏Ganesha
🛹Peter
30
40
20
0
10
🛹Peter
🌲Sam
30
45
15
0
10
We need to help our team members feel secure in their jobs. Nothing will burn out an employee faster than worrying about their job security all of the time. Most of our contributors work WAY more than the hours their report, but we compensate them highly for their time so it works out in the wash. But we need to take care of our people.
🌲Sam
☁️Giv
35
30
20
5
10
There’s not a major different between “Team” and “Fellow” in terms of productivity and impact. Fellow are the quickest way to scale the team without the HR overheard.
☁️Giv
🐉Jack
50
30
40
-20
0
For full time hires, I think we need to level set first, before we decide on whether it’s 5 strong yes. We lack the interviewer training, level setting before/after, and get the process approved by executive team, so that he doesn’t need to be the final approver and can decentralize hiring with confidence, with frequent reporting and check-ins with leadership. Otherwise, we should just spell it out as 4 strong yes + final approval. We had an 8 Strong Yes for a candidate, but the final approval is pushed back. So this 5 strong yes is artificial. This might scale now, but won’t scale when we have 10+ full time hires a month. Once we get that decentralized decision agreed upon, I’d suggest an average point average of 3.7 (out of 4.0 scale) with 5-6 interviewers, like a summa cum laude without any Strong No’s. Introduce a huddle before (30 mins) and one after each interview (30 mins) to then discuss, and interviewers are given one last chance to change their votes at the huddle, and a decision is then reached. On DAOs, nuf said. We need to each join other sustainable DAOs before daring ourselves to approve any DAOs.
🐉Jack
🚗Boris
5
0
0
0
0
I am not sure about the available options. I like the fellows figure, but if we want to retain top talent, we are competing with other employers, and people prefer job stability. I am not sure how we can be competitive as an employer if fellows have to worry every three months about having a job (not to mention basic benefits like health, parental leave, etc.)
🚗Boris
🎥Adrian
90
50
30
-100
30
I’m with Devin on this one... No internal DAOs... With DAOs being one big experiment, it’s one thing to experiment with DAOs to build someone else’s house... it’s another to experiment with DAOs building your own... I’d wait until we can prove that a DAO works flawlessly externally before introducing it internally.
🎥Adrian
🔭Daniel
70
30
50
-60
10
Establish a hiring process and stick to it. Add more members to the team and establish structure. Note that structure does not equal strict hierarchy. I don’t believe we should be on boarding or joining DAOs at this time - DAOs should only be implemented or created when it provides more benefit than without, and I cannot think of a reason it would be needed, especially not at this time. Let’s continue on boarding contributors who are looking to provide some hours of their time; this has served as a great method for getting assistance needed for small projects. Bottom line, we need more people on the team in order to stay relevant in this space.
🔭Daniel
🎬Danny
40
100
30
-110
20
Fellows and contributors help out significantly with our operations, however I feel that some may be being over worked due to miscommunication. In my opinion we need to hire a few more core team members, such as a marketing manager, internal communications manager, and an events coordinator, in order for our fellows and contributors to work as efficient as possible. I also agree with Adrian and Devin that there should be no internal DAOs.
🎬Danny
🎤Matt
30
45
10
0
15
I think we need a few more core hires to be the face of larger initiatives to the community, manage big picture ideas, and oversee the growing list of contributors and fellows. We cannot scale those without having enough core people to manage them and provide them with the direction necessary to make their biggest impact. I want our Fellows team to scale fastest, but we can’t simply hire a ton of fellows and then fail to manage them well. I also think we need to promote our best contributors to fellows, and our best fellows to core, then look for external hires. We can also remove the renewals process for those contributors/fellows who have completed 2 election periods and continue to have 3 strong YESs from the core team, reducing anxiety around job security
🎤Matt
💃🏻Essa
10
50
30
0
10
I agree with Giv in that there is not a major difference between “team” and “fellow”. It would be beneficial to our employment structure to utilize and give more autonomy to the fellows, as well as give them fair compensation packages for long-term sustainability. And again, I do not think it wise to continue creating internal “DAOs”. It is hindering our growth and our ability to scale effectively. I also feel the process of “renewals” should be addressed, creating a more effective path for growth and productivity.
💃🏻Essa
🦒Brian
20
40
30
10
10
Fellows are productive, but may not be sustainable long-term for each. Team hires will be necessary to effectively manage the rest.
🦒Brian
🐯Tom
40
25
30
-10
5
Mostly agree with RJ on this topic. We should increase the number of full-time employees. They are more loyal than contractors. It is hard to convince a top talent to be a contractor.
🐯Tom
💊Sahil
💊Sahil
⏳Zi
50
50
0
0
0
Skin the game
⏳Zi
💻Aaron
60
30
10
0
0
💻Aaron
⚛Jackie
30
20
30
0
20
⚛Jackie
📖Devin
30
40
40
-20
10
From my experience going from contributor to full fellow I have observed an issue with the model we currently have for employment: there is a poor infrastructure for information feedback loops from contributor to core. What I would recommend is fixing this and keeping a tight core – but VERY IMPORTANTLY, making sure that the core listens to the non-core groups and trusts them with decision-making power. NO INTERNAL DAOs.
📖Devin
🐇Rachel
20
40
20
10
10
I have to agree with Devin on this one. The contributor-to-fellow path could be improved, and we should implement effective training and proper onboarding for all team members. (I am glad that Rob & Matty have taken initiative in this area, as HR is important) On another note, I am grateful to have had such immense support & guidance from members of the core team. I would also like to add, let’s stay away from internal DAOs, which can be dangerous and lean more towards a centralized business model and steer us away from true decentralization.
🐇Rachel
🐐Mikey
15
30
30
0
15
This is tough to wrap my head around. On the one hand, my 10x is expanding the “full-time” Harmony team. So putting a small number under Team and Fellows might contradict my 10x. However, I agree with what Li has mentioned regarding more core/full-time hires, “I’m always most conservative, not about the money, but about diluting the communication and culture...”. Contributors, DAOists, and Bounty hunters will still play a large roll in task management and outreach for Harmony. I’ve said this in another execution strategy poll, but I want to reiterate again. . .I believe these numbers on resource allocations will evolve and scale more to the right of this table as the protocol and the global market matures.
🐐Mikey
🚜Demetre
40
20
25
10
5
I say 40 for Team from the standpoint of locking in dedicated engineers. 9 people is a lot of people for a DAO. It’s hard to get 9 people together for dinner. I like the number but it seems a successful DAO formation should be longer process than what it is now.
🚜Demetre
💿Kelly
30
25
25
-15
40
I appreciate that Harmony hires community members to build, but I don’t think a DAO structure is needed/best for employment. The same ‘spirit’ of community engagement can be achieved in a contributor role.
💿Kelly
🌟Novell
40
20
20
20
0
This question, in my opinion, heavily depends on which stage of growth one is at. For Harmony, at this point, I think we need a slightly bigger team (focusing on strong, loyal Devs). All other activities can be supported from a Fellow and Contributor perspective. And lastly, I will suggest exploring having partnerships with great DAOs. This will provide a few key benefits to Harmony by leveraging external DAOs: 1. Allow Harmony stay focus on building your bread and butter. 2. Ability to halt the partnership with the DAO once the aim/ objectives have been established. More cost efficient and easier to implement when partnering with a DAO. Will also make the DAO self sustainable by sourcing their work. For example - Blu3 DAO is amazing at hosting scholarships, managing and throwing events, educational panels and workshops and engaging with non web 3 native and converting them. Blu3 is also women focused, which SHOULD BE leveraged as a PR campaign to boost Harmony’s social ROI and championing women empowerment as part of “radical social change”. We need a good PR campaign alongside building a good technology. By investing in the above - Harmony 1) Gets the work done 2) Have a flexible working arrangement 3) reap the social / PR benefit 4) Attract women talent into the eco-system (may be a competitive advantage) that no other chains are currently pursuing 5) Use this to attract the other half of the gender into web 3.
🌟Novell
🦋Amy
🦋Amy
🤖Eric
30
40
10
0
20
Declining to answer - I’m not familiar enough with overall needs and priorities, and which structure would best support them Updated answer - based on Conversation with Peter, bring on core team to round out leadership, and train in how to become stewards of decentralized workflows. Fellows to help push initiatives forward. Contributors / bounties to help accelerate progress on well-defined work
🤖Eric
⚔Soph
20
50
20
5
5
DAO should be self sustainable with a clear economic model and revenue stream, we might help (a bit) at the start but shouldn’t continuously inject money into it. We still a strong core team that can lead the Fellow and contributor with strong processes to follow to ease the transaction/handover of the work to be done
⚔Soph
⛵Hakwan
0
50
0
30
20
⛵Hakwan
⚽Abhishek
20
10
40
10
20
⚽Abhishek
🛰️Max
50
0
30
0
20
A close-knit team makes most sense to me, but I understand the ability for fluid contributors to give back to the ecosystem. I myself was a bounty hunter for a while. However, it makes sense to have some middle ground between them, a sort of “part-time” contributor. I am against fellows because of the job security risk.
🛰️Max
⛓️Konstantin
15
30
30
15
10
⛓️Konstantin
🪙Gheis
40
25
15
10
10
🪙Gheis
♒Nick
30
30
30
10
30
at the time being i don’t see the way we can completely migrate from the “team+contributors” to just “contributors”, but what i really love is how we’ve grown since the release of “one for builders and creators”; this is something really new that makes people to rethink about an employment;
♒Nick
🧑‍🍳 Victa
10
10
40
20
20
If our strategy is to decentralise then our focus should be more towards contributors, DAOs and Bounties. We should re-think the DAO initiative and use it more effectively.
🧑‍🍳 Victa
🐙Sergey
🐙Sergey
📱Tejassvi
📱Tejassvi
🏔Diego
30
30
10
10
10
🏔Diego
🏓Xiaopeng
20
30
20
15
15
I think a stable core team for a long time is necessary, but it does’t have to be a lot of people.
🏓Xiaopeng
🍩Bruce
🍩Bruce
🥤Jeremy
🥤Jeremy
🚛Mohamed
🚛Mohamed
🛫Tahir
🛫Tahir
🎯Hochung
30
50
20
0
0
💣Paola
30
50
10
10
0
I actually don’t quite know how the various categories are defined here, and where the boundaries sit between them once go beyond core team (is it hours? role/scope? experience? etc) - so first things first I may totally be misunderstanding here 🙂. But my 2c based on what I have witnessed so far is that, while there is an incredible amount of value/benefit in decentralizing skills and responsibilities on both ends, I also think there should be a better way to ensure that *anyone* who is in any way a part of the Harmony ecosystem is truly set up to bring the value they should bring. And to me that comes down to a) clear and direct POC within harmony — and that’s where a few more core members could help bolster up the team and drive in the areas/functions that are not as covered today afaik. b) a well defined role and scope, within Harmony and/or the wider partner space, that has a set of shared and agreed OKRs and KPIs [ideally building on their concrete expertise OR at least tied to clear test+outcome] c) a compensation system that incentivizes the right behaviors (ie. impact-focused + skin in the game) while treating individuals fairly → and that to me is where the hourly approach falls a bit flat. In my opinion hourly rates can work when in a very neatly structured org [ie. temp workers in larger startups], but when it comes to a world that is as fluid as Web3 both in terms of goals and skillsets, I am doubtful it does, particularly for younger folks. People shouldn’t think “time”, they should think “impact”. The timesheet approach instead IMO creates a lot of distorsion, ie. either some folks who bill way less hours than they put in bc the workload is not measured to their quota, or others who will tend to bill in a somewhat simplistic way (ie. X hrs a week) and try to “fill up” their hours. I think it’s a loss-loss situation, both financially as well as in terms of missed opportunities/output.
💣Paola
🍄Darren
50
25
20
5
0
Abstaining. Unclear on original strategies for these categories, let alone the current state of them and how to improve.