Yes, the TAP has no mention of salaries at all. The whole DAO can vote on it later tbh I feel like is a copout to doing it right the first time. Let’s be realistic the participation is abysmal and nobody seems overly interested in any governance proposals. Not one comment from any regular community member on this at this stage and barely any at previous steps and any feedback that was given regarding tweaks to this were defended and ignored which doesn’t give the appearance of community governance to me. That screams to me that those who stand to get paid from this proposal are essentially saying we are doing it our way so deal with it attitude. Not one ounce of compromise was given at the previous stages and now it’s too late how convenient. Good governance tries to find common ground thru discussions and tweak things before they get to final stages not silently veto internally and submit as is. What’s happened with this doesn’t promote healthy governance or feedback. Before you blindly try to debate this response take a step back and put yourself in the shoes of someone who does participate and tries to provide meaningful feedback and has nothing to gain from this proposal and isn’t on WL payroll already. Then you can have a clearer perspective of things.
This begs a wen proposal ser? 
Unsure if this was all meant for Bam or not, but this is my last take on it.
True. This does not mean the next TAP can’t mention it.
This is simply not true.
Your comments talked about how a surge in wMEMO value would be unfair to the DAO and wouldn’t be reasonable in terms of salaries. You then suggested that the salaries should be a fixed value in USD.
As a result, it was added that salaries WILL be evaluated on a regular basis and noted that any change would be voted on by the DAO. That was to ensure that people don’t just increase their salaries without a DAO vote. It was to dictate procedure and not as a copout to say we might review the salaries, but if we don’t the DAO can vote at anytime.
Proposers have the final say on what they propose. It has always been like that. You made a suggestion, I explained the reasoning why it was being proposed that way. We agreed on the concern that there is no need to have ridiculously high salaries and modifications were made for that.
If having salaries reviewed is not common ground, I don’t know what is.
We can argue/agree that it does not go far enough in this proposal. So we can work towards that. In the meantime, there is a clause that mandate a review and a TAP (if passed) can also put a cap at any time.
Healthy governance is also accepting that not everybody agrees on everything. Feedback was provided and it was discussed openly. Not all of it was incorporated, but like you said, sometimes it’s about common ground. That is most likely the healthiest part of our governance process at the moment give how abysmal the engagement is.
I can’t speak for the others, but since I’ve been the main person replying, this is the part that annoys me the most. If you believe that I just “blindly” debate then there is no point in me having any type of interactions with anyone as they will simply be disregarded as I have something to gain. You say this as if the exchanges we had contained 0 value and were not genuine. As if it was impossible for me to believe what I said and was simply reading from a script.
If there are ever any concerns that I am simply here for the money or because I have something to gain, I do not need to remain on the team. I have been advocating/pushing for governance even before I was on Wonderland’s payroll and my opinion on this proposal would be the same if my name was not up there.
You are also making a false logic by assuming that because someone would have nothing to gain or wouldn’t be on Wonderland’s payroll the would have a “clearer” perspective. Just because perspectives are different, it does not mean that one is less clear than the other.
I will state once again that the majority of this proposal came from a proposal initiated by the community the majority of which had nothing to gain from it.
I can understand why you feel the way that you’ve mentioned in this comment, but I would say a lot of it is unfair/simply false.
Well I am sorry you feel that way. I have reached out to lots of community members while writing the proposals and adjusted them several times. Most of it is from Workerland, where lots of community participated. The comments we got were supportive and as Nal mentioned it deserves it’s own proposal, which I agree with, to be honest.
This is a huge proposal and has lots of changes, new positions etc - to find a specific salary or even number for each wasn’t my intention, as it is unknown as this stage how much work these positions will really be.
A wmemo pay was preferred by the community in times we still had lots of participation and I doubt price will x5 until Nal and team has time to put together a specific proposal for that.
I will admit my response comes off a bit harsh after re-reading it. I will apologize if you were offended by that.
When I asked the below two questions and there is really no existing provision that covers them I found your response frustrating. I mean if the intent is to come back and amend the TAP to define these questions or an additional proposal is expected to clarify why not just state the real intent and future thoughts.
Can you define what a regular basis is?
Who decides what’s reasonable?
And yes you have been the main responder on most proposals and I should say I have no idea if you’re actually the proposer or if you are just fulfilling your governance duties by responding and providing input. Either way I appreciate what you do. I have also tried to drum up participation because I think it’s important. Maybe in the future we need to have some clarity around who is proposing so we know what responses are just input or governance roles just doing their jobs vs who the proposer is trying to understand their viewpoint since they wrote it.
My point on taking a step back was because often when someone is already in the middle of things they forget to look at it from another point of view. Essentially a look at it from a normal investors view reminder. Not that one is better than another but combined provide a better perspective.
Voting has now closed for WIP #28.
The Wonderland Organizational Structure has passed with 99.64% of votes in favor!
https://wl-l.ink/Snapshot/WIP-28