Term limits for Grant Support Squad ( DRAFT ) This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 70% 7,951,420 VP (58 votes) * No 30% 3,490,394 VP (55 votes) * Abstain 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

Actually, The GSS isn’t working for a boss, when you work independant you can be not hired for the same job you did last year I see it like this and even for the job I dont know how it is in the USA but yes you have to reapply in a year and based of your performance in the first month they can say that you are eligble for the job. ofcourse it means that you could lose your job but if you did good enough you are the most credible person to do it.

Hmmm... I can see pros and cons to this. Pros: We don't stay stagnant with new ideas We give opportunities to new applicants We have a way to rotate out squad members who may not be performing their duties We *may* be more decentralized *(this is not a guarantee)* Cons: 1 year is not a lot of time to become proficient at your job Rotating out for new applicants to have a turn doesn't seem like the best reasoning There's a large amount of work to go through the rehiring process on a regular basis During overlap periods, we would have less experience to rely on My mind goes to "traditional" jobs, what do they do? In a normal job, do we have to reapply for our job every year? Do we have to reapply every 3 years? If we're qualified, isn't that enough? How long are terms in public service jobs? In a professional career, I would say it takes 2-3 years to attain a proficient level of experience. I would suggest the terms are 2-3 years before having to reapply. This would allow for enough time to gain the necessary skills to do the job, but would allow our community a way to remove GSS members who are unable to fulfill the expectations of the job (and allow a safety net for the community to remove GSS members in the case that they are misusing their authority). Voting no for now, because I think 1 year is too short and would create an excess of work to constantly be going through a reapplication procedure. I would support a term of 2-3 years before they have to reapply.

Yeah. That is my understanding. I don't think anyone is suggesting change for the sake of change is good, but it is important that we establish a process to make sure everyone who is qualified gets an equal opportunity to apply for these roles. Otherwise it risks becoming centralized and creating an environment where who you know instead of a meritocracy. Personally I think any squad deemed to be important enough to be a "core unit" of the dao should be a committee and each member should be considered individually and not as a group, but that doesn't mean the people who pioneered the roles should be punished simply for the sake of change.

[quote="dao, post:1, topic:19191"] Term Limits and Reapplication: Specify the number of consecutive terms a member can serve on the Grant Support Squad before they must reapply for their position. For instance, after two consecutive terms, members must reapply and compete with other qualified candidates to ensure a fair selection process. [/quote] This sounds like it is saying that theoretically GSS members can have unlimited terms as long as they re-apply and are reselected from the applicant pool. If that's the case, I'm for it but I don't believe the people with the experience and first-hand knowledge should be replaced for the sake of fresh blood. I like something that gives new applicants an equal chance of being chosen, but in a way that still allows the "current" members to be chosen if they are truly the best for the job.

[quote="CheddarQueso, post:8, topic:19191"] al. I believe we also have rules against previo [/quote] Hey @CheddarQueso the previous proposal passed so I promoted just to draft :D 

We already voted on this topic. I don't think we should be bringing up the same topic again if we already voted on it... this should be an invalid proposal. I believe we also have rules against previously rejected proposals being brought up again?

I think revenge would apply if the proposal was mean, I think that you think that we want to destabilize the GSS while we just want to set term limits. I dont understand your definition of revenge because its not like I am here trying to do something bad.

IMO implemeting term limits for GSS make sense, I also supported this type of initiative [before on GSS poll](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=858970d0-b7a4-11ed-9cbc-e93d98a2df52) and on other [Committees](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=0b577640-a8bd-11ed-8dfe-4ff0ad4dfd32). For example, [Accountability Committee](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VPb33QdeFlg-qnmclWZF2Ll_3USLUnFO/) has them: 

Hey @InJesterr, I have no qualms with the proposal, and I also have nothing against you. My opinion is that having duel arena or yourself author this proposal may be perceived as "revenge" in light of how things are unfolding, even though u may not mean it as such. Under such contentious circumstances, it would be better to allow a neutral party to author it to prevent any potential rise of disputes down the road.

Hey Recently it is true that I have personally experienced some things. I already shared in the forums but you can also see on the previous proposal that I had commented that it was a very good idea, Right now I am just putting it forward to draft just because of I have personally experienced that its responsible to have accountability over trust. It doesn’t mean that the GSS wont be necessary anymore, but rather we want to make sure that everything is going smoothly and wont be done irretional to also have some safety for grantees. We want to grow together as a community and fix every minor flaw in order to have a smooth process and nice time in the DAO. I don’t like the word revenge since all I do is trying to help.

If I'm not mistaken @3Point1Four, this is not the first time this has been brought up. Aside from that this is something that is needed regardless of motive. I'm glad to see it come up finally. I assume the details will be next if this passes to the next stage.

Hmm.. Why does this feel like a "revenge" move for whatever is happening with duel arena? I'd like to see it as an impartial draft proposal but its hard to ignore that the main author to this proposal is an entity that has just recently gotten into an unresolved conflict with the GSS. Feels very politically motivated and not a good perception even though there are good intentions.