Great points, Karl! Very constructive and highly appreciated! Here are my views on the concerns.
I’m not sure we need a general coordinator. I appreciate the idea, but the more levels we add to a structure, the bigger the risk of bureaucracy.
Good point! I see the main idea here as to create a non-bureaucratic structure where all the authority (power) should not belong to a boss or a group of bosses. Also the idea is aimed to ease funding procedures even for small translation tasks what is in favor of non-bureaucracy. Luckily, we should be able to create a structure where fulfilled work may be easily reviewed and verified by any community member. We also have freedom of speech here. So if there will be a menace of bureaucracy being formed, the community should be able vote against the next funding of bureaucratic machine.
- estimating new job volume and upcoming month expenses
-Having a global coordinator would be beneficial here, but I think that language ambassadors could do it too
I see the most important role in general coordinator as to allow fast funding on current needs. Without it, we’d see many proposals for different tranlations while for any SmartCash member it may be tricky to decide on how to vote on such proposals - Is it a high priority content/language? Are similar translations already exist in this language? Can I trust this new translator? Are numbers and work volume presented here well balanced? So we may see the situation where delays present and translations stuck in bureaucracy procedures while some low-quality work is being funded for.
- organising new language groups, initial vesting process
-Even though people could create new language groups by themselves too, the general coordinator would probably make things simpler.
As I see it, general coordinator should be able to engage new language groups step by step, giving small amount of work initially and reviewing the results with help of native speakers in social media SmartCash groups in respective language. Obviously, general coordinator won’t be able to ensure translation quality by himself while not being a native speaker. General coordinator should consult SmartCash community members before taking an initiave in new language group creation.
At the start of new language translation group there will be a task where general coordinator should be able to ensure that new language ambassador is able (skilled enough) to perform own duties. There we may see situations where opinion of whole respective language community is needed.
Of course, general coordinator is not considered a leader of the structure, but as worker who has own duties and own role. His work is also easily checked and transparent.
- choosing most valuable content for multilanguage translation with help of other members
-Language ambassadors should be able to do it
True, but it is better to be done together. First of all, language ambassadors may be too busy to notice some important content in other languages or some content that is considered important by another language ambassador. General ambassador sees all the content being translated as he allocates funding. I think the decision on new content should be discussed on together and in rare cases be even voted for, if opinions differ significantly.
- submitting detailed financial reports with links to actual job done monthly
-The global coordinator would have to ask the language ambassadors for the details, so he’d probably end up posting their reports and getting paid for their work.
True, here major work lays on language ambassadors. In this particular task global coordinator only have to compile reports together to confirm balances. Though it doesn’t mean that global coordinator is being paid for the work of language ambassadors. He has own work volume that directly depends on the overall translation volume - number of language groups, translators and jobs, He has responsibilities and has to constantly dedicate own time to eliminate delays in working process. I estimated his contribution to the system very roughly for it to appear currently as a reasonable pay, to ensure sufficient incentive to perform well.
If community further decides that general coordinator is being paid more that he contributes, then certain changes should be discussed / voted on and implemented. More to that, if community decides that global coordinator is not working good enough, then he should be replaced by a suitable candidate.
As for current proposal it looks like I’m initially going to follow through the project as general coordinator having some extra tasks associated with the project start and tweaks. So current expected 210 usd pay for general coordinator definitely won’t be wasted - such a price for a very promissing project being successfully implemented is more than affordable, considering time and efforts invested.
When we come to the point where most of the funds will be spent, I’ll have much more clear picture on how much time it takes for global coordinator to perform own duties. We would be able to see the whole working process more clearly and calculate reasonable rate for global coordinator based on working hours and job volume.
It looks like the majority of our community members support this project. I also see a great potential and expected efficiency in such structrure, so I’m planning on submitting the proposal on Monday (to be exact till midnight GMT, lol).