P-22: DAO Governance Structure Upgrade

[luan]

@kempsterrrr

not a massive fan either. I thought we’d agreed we wouldn’t do this and you were going to look into it? are you suggesting we do it and then replace it with a new groups once we’ve figured out their elections and rewards?

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.

@kempsterrrr

Yeah, we’re aligned. Very keen to standardise our language though as more words === less understanding happy to jam on this.

Sounds good. We’ll chat.

@kempsterrrr

yeah noted. feels like Workstreams == Sub-DAOs but Service Providers not so much. Thoughts?

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

[kempsterrrr]

@luan

@kempsterrrr

not a massive fan either. I thought we’d agreed we wouldn’t do this and you were going to look into it? are you suggesting we do it and then replace it with a new groups once we’ve figured out their elections and rewards?

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.

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

[kempsterrrr]

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.

[Erik_Knobl]

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.

[kempsterrrr]

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

[luan]

@kempsterrrr

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

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

[wolovim]

@luan

AxisOne is a public goods initiative that exists in service to the DAO.

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

[luan]

@wolovim

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?

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.

[kempsterrrr]

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

Updated to:

@kempsterrrr

Act as moderators for CoC & Violation process being defined here (Procedure 1). )Note: Stewards may be replaced as moderators depending on the outcome of that proposal).

[luan]

Update looks good, mate

[Wikist]

@kempsterrrr

My thoughts are we should do that in two ways:

1. Members earn $CODE by participating in the DAO (i.e. we set a $CODE reward for attending workshops, writing a blog etc.). Ideally, this is done using an hourly rate in USD converted to $CODE at the time of proposal. (i.e. takes 15 hours to write a blog and the USD rate is $50/hour. Thus Member gets 50 X $CODE market price as a reward) thoughts?
2. Contributors are rewarded in $CODE based on an estimated % of their hourly contribution converted from USD. One possibility being Contributors receive 20% of their estimated time contribution to the DAO in $CODE using the same USD conversation as Members above.

What do you think @Wikist ?

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.

[Wikist]

@kempsterrrr

I agree that being a Tokenholders/Member or the DAO !== access to things in the DAO isn’t ideal and we should work on this. Unsure if now is the time to make that change as unsure of what the implications in discord are. Maybe we can have this as a goal in S2?

I agree to add it to S2 goals.

@kempsterrrr

Considering suggesting the following so would like love to folks thoughts:

1. How do we feel about Stewards being the treasury signers?
2. How do we feel about Stewards playing the moderation role in the Code of Conduct?

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.

@kempsterrrr

a) Keep $CODE Rewards the same
b) Increase the hourly rate for calculations
b) Decide on a USD rate and convert it via market price at the start of the Season/time of proposal

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

@wolovim

sub-daos probably should have voice in stewardship of the dao, but just want to highlight this possible governance attack vector: sub-dao needs vetting from stewards to formally exist, but once active, sub-daos can operationally do as they please, including nominating stewards. (correct?)

consider: sub-dao steward nominee requires sharing the same template info (handles, address, intention, qualifications), then a confirmation step by the other appointed stewards?

Very important catch. I’m behind the proposition.

@kempsterrrr

I think something similar to how Gitcoin defines their Steward’s rewards would make sense as it balances the rewards for different types of Stewards based on what they’re likely to be “earning” from other roles in the DAO.

Compensation
GTC compensation will vary depending on the current relationship to Gitcoin

• Existing full time Gitcoin contributors will receive a $200 stipend per month
• Existing part time Gitcoin contributors will receive a $400 stipend per month
• Non Gitcoin contributors will receive a $750 stipend per month

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.

@Erik_Knobl

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.

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

[kempsterrrr]

@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:

@kempsterrrr

image1272×188 10.1 KB

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

@kempsterrrr

Members who want to dedicate their time and expertise to the DAO, helping it achieve its goals and its mission to accelerate the education and impact of a new wave of web3 builders.

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

[kempsterrrr]

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.

@Wikist

@wolovim

sub-daos probably should have voice in stewardship of the dao, but just want to highlight this possible governance attack vector: sub-dao needs vetting from stewards to formally exist, but once active, sub-daos can operationally do as they please, including nominating stewards. (correct?)

consider: sub-dao steward nominee requires sharing the same template info (handles, address, intention, qualifications), then a confirmation step by the other appointed stewards?

Very important catch. I’m behind the proposition.

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.

[Erik_Knobl]

@kempsterrrr

After five days of nominations, the election is moved to a Snapshot vote with a Weighted Voting strategy that allows members to allocate a % of their total vote across all nominated Stewards.

A maximum of 10 Stewards will be elected from this vote.

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?

@kempsterrrr

Term length & limitations

Stewards serve for 1 Season at a time, with re-elections required before the start of each Season. There is no limit to how many times a Steward can be re-elected.

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

[Wikist]

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.

[kempsterrrr]

Thanks for all your feedback and chats along the way

@Wikist

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.

Here is how I’ve tried to handle this:

@kempsterrrr

Where there is a tied vote, the vote defaults to Against

[kempsterrrr]

@Erik_Knobl

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?

nice catches. will amend too:

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

@kempsterrrr

Term length & limitations

Stewards serve for 1 Season at a time, with re-elections required before the start of each Season. There is no limit to how many times a Steward can be re-elected.

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

@Erik_Knobl

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

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

[kempsterrrr]

@Erik_Knobl

If there are only five candidates, what happens?

@kempsterrrr

• A maximum of 10 Stewards will be elected from this vote.
• To be elected, Stewards must receive at least 1 vote.
• If there is a tie between 2 or more Stewards for the 10th place, a repeat vote must be held with *only *those tied for the 10th place.

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

[Erik_Knobl]

Yup. I think that covers it. Thanks.