There was only one thing that made me skip a beat -
(I’m going to ignore the fact this statement was totally valid in that context, which is that CF is run, more or less, like a normal company, and that this was a corner case of “more hands than work”.)
However, I am going to address the fact that my first thought when reading it was “Wait a second, that doesn’t sound right.”
Ambassadors are not employees of CF, they don’t “work” for CF and shouldn’t be treated as such, even by inference.
Ambassadors are Cardano evangelists who meet the community’s criteria (represented by CF atm). That’s it.
CF’s immediate needs, or available resources just shouldn’t be a factor in this equation.
Ambassador status is not “A chance to work for CF”, it is an award from CF, recognizing the Ambassador’s role in the community.
Then I thought on it a bit more, and saw that this ideal is good and well, as long as there are no rewards other than commendations and respect. Once you have limited resources (like capital) being tapped for rewards, it gets more complicated.
Since I totally believe (atm) in the ideal that there should be as many official ambassadors as there are real ambassadors, I tried to figure it out, and here is what I figured -
How can we make sure anyone who wants to be an ambassador, (and meets the community’s contribution criteria) is one?
Growth Planning will be imperative: With effective growth planning the community could anticipate the amount of resources required to recognize and support its natural Ambassador growth. Without it, there will be much internal and external friction around the program’s terms & conditions.
Taking one for the team: If planning fails, and underestimates growth, it could be decided resources are redistributed to include more participants. Say, 10-20% reward reduction across the board, to get a short term relief.
Bring your own capital: If under-estimation is severe or prolonged, and taking one for the team doesn’t cut it, an emergency protocol can come into effect where new Ambassadors pay for their own near term costs in joining the program. (Not great, bordering on terrible, I know. But haven’t come up with a better idea yet.)
Not all ambassadors should be equal, probably:
This note is more for the future (I am constantly imagining all of this being run by smart contracts), but what ideas like the ones I mentioned tell me is -
The program could probably benefit a lot from a reputation system.
If cuts have to be made, or if roles are rolled back, for whatever reason, this should not be egalitarian.
IMO, parameters like the type, duration, and quality of contribution, should all impact how the network treats an Ambassador over time.
How should the reputation system work? and what should be the network’s policies?
Well, that’s for all of us to decide, isn’t it? Let’s hear it .
PS - Hope this is the right category…