This proposal updates the DDIP process by removing the requirement for the majority of Stewards to comment on a proposal before it can be elevated to Snapshot.
If this proposal passes, once a proposal has been in draft for 5 days, only one Steward will need to support the proposal to elevate.
This is intended as an interim solution to unblock the current Governance Structures and welcomes further discussion and proposal on how to improve Governance.
Governance of the DAO is an on-going experiment.
The last update to Governance introduced elected Stewards in an attempt to democratise elevated responsibilities in Governance. Whilst this served its purpose to a degree, sustaining this model has proved challenge and had the following impacts:
Proposal have been stuck in Governance for long periods of time
Stewards not involved in the day-to-day operation of the DAO have struggled to maintain sufficient context to perform their roles
This proposal aims to help us start addressing these challenges by unblocking the current process so we can elevate proposal faster
Scope of Work
This change is simple and only requires an update of the relevant Governance documentation in the incoming DAO Handbook - here is a PR to submit these changes if the proposal passes
The main drawback is reducing sybil resistance in Governance by reducing the threshold needed to elevate votes to Snapshot.
Pity that the stewards don’t have the bandwidth for this.
And it’s a pity that there aren’t even three folks that can fulfill the role of reviewing proposals once in a while, so there is a chance of some varied opinion.
But tbh, IMO it is a pretty flat, boring and time consuming process, and the written word is open to misinterpretation, being done asynchronously is tedious. Human to human is a much faster way to get things sorted out.
But I guess it is what it is. And at least some one that has been entrusted by the community to do the job is better than none … until a solution is found. In other words, I’m very reluctantly supporting this interim ‘solution’.
Has there been $CODE rewards paid out to stewards that couldn’t fulfill their duties, and if so, is that going to be returned to the Developer_DAO treasury?
Agreed, though I believe folks under estimate the effort required to maintain enough context to peform, particularly given proposals have a habit of making it to proposal stage after a load of synchronous conversations have happened the stewards we not involved in. My general view is to perform this role as is the stewards would need to be active contributors vs elected members as: a) they’d have context and b) they’d already be being rewarded by and committed to, the DAO.
It is at the moment given the way it works though it wasn’t always that way and hasn’t always been that way since the current model was implemented - I think people don’t feel their involvement in Governance matters for a variety of reasons and also a lot of the more exciting decisions happen outside of governance. Press Start Cap x Developer DAO Fellowship is a good example of a high-level of engagement, hypothesis being it was something interested to members that directly benefit them vs empowering a small group to make decisions on their behalf.
My personal views is a mixture of the written word and sync sessions is the ideal (similar to how we used to do this) as people prefer different forms of discussion/debate/decision making, plus having a written async record is far easier for folks to follow along vs solely meetings between a small subset of humans
Love to see any actionable ideas/proposal brought forward for another way, experimentation even if only a small scale would be very valuable learning .
They weren’t issue and we need to back date the CODE forwards for the existing stewards (that’s on me)