by 0x858343382132b9ab46c857a7d52fdbafc039f784 (Zino)
Hello Community: Based on the comments regarding the name of the New Committee that will be in charge of revoking/pausing grants, we are opening this poll to choose the most suitable name for it.
I don’t think its an invalid question, the vote option reads
If you must know the reason for my vote - I simply don’t like any of the options (therefore invalid) + I voted against creating this commitee. I think that job should fall under “Grant Support Squad”.
Thanks for answer, I also agree with your opinion about GSS.
I feel like Grant Diligence Committee sounds better than Grant Due Diligence Committee!
In world full of people that dont have accountability, sure makes sense they wouldn’t choose the word.
Something with “SQUAD” sounds way more cooler
I think the name “Grant Revocations Committee” comes out of the gate with a negative undertone, like these are the people who are going to come and take your grant away. I’d rather see it presented as a committee who is here to help keep projects accountable. Sometimes projects might not deliver on what was promised because of reasons that are out of their control. This committee should be here to listen, learn, revoke the grant if need be, and these are all terms that would fall under the term “accountability”. I just feel this term is more professional and less punitive.
I am voting accountability. holding project accontable is what this committee should be about. Due Diligence is done before in most cases and Revocations is an out come.
I agree with what @Canessa and @OldGuy said. “Revocations” is a result and has a negative connotation. It will elicit an equally, if not greater, negative emotion. Having a “Grant Revocations Committee” reach out is like already being found guilty. The automatic reaction of most will be defensive out of the gate.
“Grant Accountability Committee” & “Grant Due Diligence Committee” are both much better, though I do prefer Accountability (along with @OldGuy’s point) and voted accordingly.
Committees are permanent and not funded by grants.
Squads are funded by grants and therefore temporary (for the duration of the grant(s)).
That committee is not here to be carebears, they are here to decide to revoke or not, the main part of accounting should be done by the GSS, the revocation committee just check if the GSS was fair and if the grantee has anything to respond.
Voting Grant Revocation Committee.
Why not (1) Grants Integrity Squad? Like the symbol on my wearable represents. Also a community coming together to resolve conflict. The (2) NTeasee Squad. Or better yet assign it to the committee already in place and being paid to ensure the grants objectives are being met. Otherwise (3) The Grants Police.
I respectfully disagree, I think the separation of GSS and this Committee makes sense, similar to how in real life we have an executive branch with prosecutors representing “the people” (which would be the “Grant Support Squad”, funny) and a judicial branch that makes the decision (judges, which would be this Accountability/Revocation Committee).
Well, I never said it didn’t make sense. I just think GSS should be the one to do this as they have already received a grant from DAO (representing the community).
In Ginoct’s words (which I agree with),
Grant Support Squad
A team of three individuals (with business, technology & project management, and legal skills) overseeing the entire Grants program, ensuring the grantees meet their goals and contribute value to the DAO. They also operate as the nexus between the Decentraland Foundation and the grantees, especially for grant projects heavily technical.
then CheddarQueso asked a great question:
Something that is not spelled out here:
If the GSS, over the course of the grant, finds that the grantee is not responsive, misses updates, or is otherwise not complying with the terms and conditions of the grant, they will send arguments to the accountability committee requesting the grant be revoked correct?
To which Zino replied with,
Yes. with our arguments.
and so I had a hard time trying to overlook the redundancy on their responsibilities.
If the GSS as you suggest represents in fact “the people” then shouldn’t we trust them to be unbiased in these decisions if “the people” are the DAO, if we don’t then couldn’t we also suggest a revocation of their grant?
It doesn’t really matter to this point since it passed already - I didn’t think DAO paying a committee (for whatever cost it may be for) to do what I believe the GSS should already be doing was needed.
Appreciate your opinion ser 
What is the best name for the Accountability Commitee?
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
What is the best name for the Accountability Commitee?
This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)