I have been involved with different discussions in the last days about the payment plan [PMCR](https://gitlab.postmarketos.org/postmarketOS/pmcr/-/blob/main/0004-payment-plan.md). Among the different feedback I've gotten, an important part is that, even though we saw the PMCR as a way to experiment and learn, and we expected changes, we did not provide a way to make changes to core parts of the plan. This results in problems in two different ways: * Uncertainty about changes. Since we didn't codify how to make changes, then there's no way to know how to influence the future of the programme. Should future changes be proposed via PMCR? Discussed in a team meeting with minimum quorum? Or never changed forever, even if we intended it as a experiment that should change, since we know we will find issues with it? * Conflict of interests. Although still small, now that we are paying some people some money, there is still a conflict of interest when a decision is made. If the people taking part on the programme are part of the vote, then there is an inherent bias towards decisions that benefit them. But we don't have a process for this, or a conflict of interest policy. My thoughts is that changes to the process at its core should come with a PMCR, or a team vote with minimum quorum and people in the programme should not take part in the votes that decide changes. Those that voted should not be allowed to join the programme for at least some time (like a quarter), so that we can avoid short-term self-interest. Thoughts welcomed