Yes, we had that too… When we get funding from a traditional organization it may come with governance and management requirements. In a project funded by the government we also had to report on the jobs created and even provide the name the individuals appointed to various positions and their salary. For us it was a disaster, because those who occupied these paid positions were also involved in voluntary roles. But they didn’t play well between the two. They took the independence and flexibility of work from the open culture (in voluntary roles) and applied that to their positions. It was pretty hard to “force” them to do their tasks on time based on centrally planned work. But the salary came in weekly anyway and they were using some of the paid time to do other things in Sensorica. Hard to keep them in one place 
There are a few ways to cut it though…
We create a non-profit organization that manages the budget and provides support. Support activities are defined as positions within the non-profit, not in the open network. So there is a clear delineation between the open network and the non-profit. The problem with this approach is that some individuals in the open network can be jealous. That’s the problem of mixing the two cultures, but it can be explained. Non-profit organizations that manage volunteers justify that by the need to ensure continuity of activities, as someone paid can be coerced to perform. A volunteer can decide anytime not to contribute anymore. It works, because these volunteers to social or environmental causes don’t think like people in open networks.
Another approach is what we usually do in Sensorica. We divide the budget into Work Packages with objectives and do some planning of activities / tasks, which have suggested budgets as well, a portion of the WP budget. Then we make a call for participation to the network. People take tasks based on their skills, log their activities in the NRP-CAS (network resource planning and benefit redistribution system) and they get paid on work done (not a fixed weekly salary, but based on logged contributions). Logs are peer reviewed. There is no requirement to approve every log. A log is a claim, not a contribution. We have a red flag rule, i.e. anyone can question a log. If no one red flags logs before payment is done, they becomes contributions and get rewarded. We also have a strong rule of non-monopolizing a task. In other words, I can chose to work on something and someone else can come and collaborate with me on the same task. Taking a task is not exclusive, to encourage collaboration and diffuse any competition among contributors for paid tasks. If 2 individuals work on a task they finish it faster and they can move on to something else. The same amount should be paid for that task, that goes to one individual or it is split among collaborators. When planning, tasks are allocated a suggestive budget from the budget of the WP. Since we have access to past participation we know who’s capable of doing what, see example.
Yet another way used in DAOs is to use a bounties - see Comakery. Core members define tasks, allocate a bounty to every task and people take them based on their skills. Once the task is completed it needs to be approved by core members before the payment is made.
In the DAO space proposals are also popular. Members define a mission, anyone can submit a proposal (with a budget) that takes the venture closer to the goals. Proposals are analyzed and if granted the budget is allocated to the team that submitted, they do the work and manage their own funds, with some oversight from core members.
Both those DAO practices (bounty and proposals) share the same problem of encouraging competition among members. This is not the case the OVNs / Sensoroica. On the other side, the OVN / Sensorica model suffers from another problem, which is that some important roles don’t get filled, because they are not fun or not enough people around.
Also, the bounty approach shifts the load to core members to solve the planning (definition of tasks) and the allocation problem (who to chose to take and monopolize the task). That is somewhat the case on the OVN approach, but not so much, because the planning is more agile and we also rely on stigmergy. The proposal approach pushes that load to the edge of the network, people define tasks that further the mission of the organization. That’s good, but it doesn’t work well for technical development where a highly integrated method with strict time dependencies is required.
So every approach has its pros and cons. It all depends on the context.
The DAO and OVN approach may not be compatible with government grants and contracts for example, if there is a requirement to detail spending in a traditional way. But you can put a smokescreen in front of these institutions again, by interfacing via a non-profit organization. It’s like taking a grant and using it to manage volunteers, but in this case you reserve a budget to distribute it to network contributors (proposals, bounty or the participatory / collaborative approach of OVNs). The financial mechanism to do that is called fiscal sponsorship. So this would be a mixed approach and some part of the budget can go to the staff of the non-profit for important support roles that require high responsibility and commitment.
