[DRAFT] - DAO Governance Structure Upgrade

But you pointed out that we’d still need 10 days, as per our DDIP processes. Further still, I don’t yet have a full group of eligible names, who can put themselves forward for election. Only 1 has confirmed their intention. I’m speaking to others, but nothing confirmed yet.

Sounds good. We’ll chat.

Yes, feels better. With the caveat that any work-stream seeking the ‘SubDAO’ classification, should meet the definition as laid out.

1 Like

So how do we fell about Stewards playing this role now and then being replace if/when we find a better solution?

1 Like

cc @wolovim

this has been updated the current model:

Compensation

Stewards are compensated in $CODE for the equivalent of the maximum number of suggested hours they might serve as a Steward multiplied by the current defined hourly rate of 15 $CODE

16 weeks X 4 Hours X 15 $CODE = 960 $CODE Per Season.

What do you think?

It feels low to me but I wonder if that is because the current calculations of the $CODE model are very low. Stewards seem to unanimously want to review these given this poll.

1 Like

Too low. The work is hard, and requires a lot of context-gathering for a Steward to perform well, way more than the 4-hour per week you are considering.

1 Like

I agree, tbh, and curious as to what you would suggest

I can see 4 possible paths:

  • We assign a higher value to Stewards’ work and put a multiplier on the hourly rate
  • We review how the $CODE rewards are calculated and update it accordingly retrospectively
  • both
  • we assign a $$$ value to the work and pay based on market price of $CODE
1 Like

I’m in agreement with this. We agreed to this last week, in Discord :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

still trying to solidify my understanding of our definition(s) of sub-dao – they vary from dao to dao. as an administrator of grants to access D_D, AxisOne is one initiative that i don’t really grok as possibly living ‘outside’ the dao. can you explain why you might want to have AxisOne become a sub-dao? or is there even an option? do we see “sub-dao” as the umbrella term for any initiative with a budget in D_D?

separate example: let’s say i want to start an exercise club in the dao. every friday we do jumping jacks on camera in the dao voice chat. if i ask for a budget (CODE or USDC), are my exclusive options to form a sub-dao or ‘apply’ to an existing sub-dao for part of their budget?

cc/ @kempsterrrr

1 Like

AxisOne in its current iteration will continue to exist under Community. Long-term it will spin out into being a fully fledged SubDAO.

One of its eventual primitives is a Fellowships Initiative/Program that adopts a format similar to Kernel, but is geared towards people who are starting from 0 — and will help them develop some competency in at least 1 discipline. Not limited to engineering, but can be community management, governance, writing, design etc. Based on conversations I had with various folk in web3 last year (such as Debond Protocol, for example), this is where revenue can begin to be realized. There’s a willingness to pay to get learning content in front of people.

But even right now, it’s a SubDAO which exists under the DD banner. And it meets the criteria (per my definition):

• Started by a DD member

• Returns value to the DAO (financial or otherwise)

The value that AxisOne provides in its initial iteration, is by helping to make the DAO more diverse, opening it up to people from marginalized communities, and also provides the public goods spin. Which is just good PR.

1 Like

My bad thought we’d agreed to pause in favour of finding moderators.

Updated to:

1 Like

Update looks good, mate :+1:t5:

1 Like

Crew³ allows to post quests for specific actions like blog articles or for posting ideas for new quests. I think that’s an elegant and easy way to reward these actions.

At the same time for as long as $CODE will have a financial value, it will have two incentives model built inside of it, regardless if we want people to only sell it when they leave the DAO or not.

I agree to add it to S2 goals.

If they were to change each sesason/rotation that would imply additional work to be done and a transition of power ritual. Still better than having people who are unresponsive and remain safe voters forever.

As $CODE has non-financial nature I would go with a) and don’t bother with USD equivalents.

Very important catch. I’m behind the proposition.

This is interesting proposition. Still I look at $CODE as a governmental and not financial token in its design and so I don’t connect it with USD rates.

Me catching up on this thread already takes more than 1 hour. :joy:

1 Like

@budget_stewards made the following updates, and I believe this proposal is now ready to go to a vote, assuming one of the other Governance Allowlist members supports it (@wolovim @willblackburn @with-heart @dabit3 @Erik_Knobl).

Summary of changes based on feedback over the last week:

Visual for easier understanding:

Clarified the language of what is a Contributor to tightly along it to our mission.

Stewards

  • Remove the nominated Sub-DAO Stewards in favour of only elected community Stewards with a limit of 10. This is done to ensure we have a manageable number of Stewards who can coordinate effectively
  • Clarified they will be performing the Moderator role in our CoC unless replaced by an alternative process/mechanism
    p
  • Move the meetings to fortnightly rather than weekly to reduce workload and allow more space for focused coordination, as discussed in last week’s coordination call
  • Clarified Steward’s vote to introduce a defined timeline of 48 hours to allow both for votes from Stewards who couldn’t attend and also forward momentum in decision-making.
  • Updated accountability section to show Members where they can track Stewards engagement in Governance on the forum and Snapshot
  • Update criteria for elections to include screenshots of engagement in Governance on Forum and Snapshot so Members can see this clearly when voting.
  • Compensation remains based on $CODE using the hourly rate - 480 $CODE. cc @Erik_Knobl @Wikist ( we can debate this in another proposal, now is not the time IMHO )

Sub-DAOs

  • Clarified definition to include groups of Contributors, not just entities
  • Removed the requirement to nominate a Stewards given the above changes to Stewards
  • Change the name of 1st “State” from information to Draft cc @wolovim
  • Added updated DDIP template for Sub-DAOs
  • Clarified how funding requests for Sub-DAOs are calculated using existing $CODE, not USD
  • Clarified the monthly and seasonal accountability mechanisms
  • Updated the Coordination between Sub-DAOs to move to the weekly Coordination call, not the Stewards call
  • Update Next Steps to allow for Season 2 Stewards elections in the 1st month of the Season
1 Like

Regarding $CODE rewards for this role. I agree with @Erik_Knobl that it is too low but doesn’t believe this is the time or the place to fix that, as it’s a big question.

Addressed by just removing the need for nominated Sub-DAO Stewards. This was really in place for Coordination but after last weeks Coordination call the consensus was they would be different things.

1 Like

The following are cases I think are not addressed in the election process:
If there are 10 candidates, and the last 3 receive no votes, do they get elected?
If there are 11 candidates, and the last 2 have the same votes, who gets elected?
If there are only five candidates, what happens?

I would make the regular term 2 Seasons: Stewards do need time to plan medium-term. However, I agree next term, because we are experimenting, should be just 1 season.

Overall, I support this proposal. Awesome work, @kempsterrrr

2 Likes

Happy with the changes overall. Good job @kempsterrrr!

The thing that I was wondering about is that in governance bodies it is better to have an uneven number of members. In case of a stall f.e. 5 paople voting for something and 5 against something the 11th Steward (or 9th of we reduce the number) will be able to resolve the vote.

Thanks for all your feedback and chats along the way :saluting_face:

Here is how I’ve tried to handle this:

nice catches. will amend too:

  1. No
  2. Run off vote
  3. No idea tbh, ideas?

I wonder if we see how it goes and then change to two season 2 if we think it makes sense later?

cheers. and thank you for contributing loads to this as well. so much of it came from our conversations, feedback, drafts you made etc… appreciate it

think this covers the gaps you rightly highlighted mate. thoughts?

Yup. I think that covers it. Thanks.

1 Like