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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.