[Feedback Request] Stewards Role

[kempsterrrr]

This has stalled. I’d like to propose a simplification of the next iteration of the Stewards:

Rather than elect 10 Stewards, I propose we require each Sub-DAO to provide 1 and they must attend this monthly call as part of being a Sub-DAO.

With the current Sub-DAO’s, that would mean:

Foundation - 1
Labs - 1
Academy - 1
Argo - 1
Eden - 1

We also have DD RPC likely to submit a budget and TalentLayer which would take us to 7. We could then elect 4 from the community and/or offer a slot to partners (i.e. Gitcoin).

I’d also like to suggest a reduce role for the Stewards to the following:

• Signers on the Treasury (highly reduced role given oSnap integration)
• Introducing and enforcing adherence to an accountability process for Sub-DAOs
• Define the DAO-Level Treasury Strategy (any DAO Operational / Foundation costs, Treasury assets available for budget requests).
• Review and decide on [ad-hoc funding requests](https://(any DAO Operational / Foundation costs, Treasury assets available for budget requests).)

Reasoning:

1. Removes extra overhead of Stewards meeting - these people come to the coordination call already
2. Reduce overhead of Stewards role - show up, consume info, discuss, vote
3. Ensure there are sufficient Stewards with high-level of context but gives space for views outside of the contributor echo-chamber
4. Give folks with skin in the game who contributing via Sub-DAOs a voice in things that might impact them, vs being served decisions without that voice

What would this look like in practice?

A worked example of what this might look like in practice.

Fixed agenda items:

• DAO financial statements by @kempsterrrr
• Any financial decisions that need to be made (legal costs, debts to operators) by @kempsterrrr
• Review Sub-DAO performance (Sub-DAO’s self-report to the forum, we discuss and collective decide to continue supporting/funding or take action - probs needs a pre-considered list of actions)

Any Steward can also add an Agenda item outside of this.

How we’d make decisions.

@kempsterrrr

Decision-Making

Stewards are encouraged to discuss topics asynchronously as much as possible and only bring discussions to the Steward Council when there is a decision to be made following the format laid out in the meeting template .

Decisions during the Steward Council are made optimistically, facilitated by the meeting’s designated facilitator using the following format:

1. Steward requesting a decision spends no more than 2 mins explaining the Agenda Item and the suggested course of action.
2. If no one is present on the call objects, their suggested course of action is recorded.
3. If any Steward objects, the facilitator puts forward a 48-hour vote of the Stewards via discord Poll restricted to the Steward role with the following format:
4. For
5. Against
6. Requires more discussion
7. Where the vote “Requires more discussion”, some feedback provided from the call and a revision should be brought to the next Stewards call for the same process.
8. Where there is a tied vote, the vote defaults to For

@wolovim @mannyornothing @Billyjitsu @Crypdough.eth @Piablo @impactbilli.eth @BluePanda @PSkinnerTech @Kirsten @stewards

Tagging a mixture of folks here who were on the coordination call today and/or would be impacted if we move to this model. I would appreciate some feedback on this