Governance V2 Draft

[plush olive]

Gov V2 is a work in progress. We acknowledge that this proposal, as written, is not complete. There are still topics in this proposal that are in contention within the council. We expect many of those to be identified by the community as well, and look forward to discussions. We will need to incorporate additional legal guidance into this proposal as well.

This is being posted now to give the community time to review and parse the document. We want to start incorporating community feedback into future revisions. There is a LOT of content in Gov V2, and it will take some time to understand and internalize how everything functions.

General discussion around Gov V2 can live in this thread. If you have specific revisions you'd like evaluated, make a thread in #1020759212172775464 that starts with "Gov V2" in the title.
For example, feedback wanting to revise council pay would be posted as:
"Gov V2 Council Pay"

We would urge that full scale discussions wait until after the holidays. Read the proposal, and take a few days to digest and understand the intent and implementation of systems before diving into discussion. The team, community, council and mods all deserve a break over the holidays to relax with family. Discussions around this proposal are expected to take a significant amount of time as we integrate and iterate on feedback, so there is no rush to submit feedback ASAP. Read and digest the content, we look forward to discussions around Gov V2 in the New Year.

Note: The updated Gov V2 has been moved to #1024051771624136774 under #1063212194394812507 - Future updates will be posted there as well!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eogzXLAbUNyYDJK0OqIJn_bkoZWRo8mM_isGWsxjcw0/edit?usp=sharing

[quiet chasm]

Love it! So glad to see this out here publicly! Really looking forward to seeing what the responses are!

[balmy cloak]

Will take a few days for me to read and comprehend everything. Will give notes after.

Wanted to initially ask what was the result of the in-house counsel opinion which resulted to this being shared ahead of schedule?

[plush olive]

This is on schedule per our last meeting notes in #📯〕council-chambers. Some considerations were 5 person sub-councils (instead of 3) and having everyone elected instead of having team members appointed. Additionally, further review is ongoing, so there may need to be more feedback integrated.

[balmy cloak]

Ah so legal has giventd it'd advice and some were reflected already in the draft but more will be incorporated?

[true lark]

Yes, the high level overview was completed and so we felt it was at a good enough status to move forward getting it into the communities hands. Additional legal/regulatory changes should be small enough in nature not to need any major overhauls and can be added in parallel to changes due to feedback from the community.

[topaz berry]

wait the team members on the gov v2 council are voted on by the community rather than appointed by the team now?

if this is the case I for one am against this change,
the Team know best who has the best context internally on what sub-council and is able to make the time commitment,
team should choose their own allotted slots not the community,

(yet to go through the full draft but reading you saying this I had to respond)

[plush olive]

Decentralization matters, and appointing people is centralized.

[safe quarry]

Ok so basically the team decides who they will put forward as a candidate and the community can vote on that person 😄

[topaz berry]

and if the team only put 2 team members forward for a sub council that only has 2 team slots then its basically the team choosing

yh im fine with that...

also understand if it needs to be voted for legal decentralization purposes, makes sense @plush olive

[true lark]

Kieran’s statement was, “Let me worry about making sure they have appropriate capacity.” In the interest of further decentralizing the DAO, supporting in a council role would be much more important to the overall project than their least valued other team activities that would drop off based on the currently understanding of what regulators want to see.

[topaz berry]

Explainer Video to help in initial understanding of this Proposal

Myself, @hushed pulsar & @true lark Created this together around a month ago and some editing has been done since then to reflect changes made later

https://youtu.be/NeG-I1BBU1I

[golden swift]

The team members are volunteering themselves for the position. I do not believe the co-founders or anyone else has a say. The team members get elected like anyone else

[viscid mist]

Need to set a time to read the proposal. I’m just glad it’s out for keen eyes to see.

[gray blaze]

Just want to quickly mention that I love the fact that you guys proposed that governance spending is going to be kept between 24K - 30K per month with a greater structure (that was my main push back from previous version)

Question: Will this governance structure give access to audited financial statements to elected and doxxed council members? If so, will all subcouncils have access to this info or just IMC and Strategy SC?

[plush olive]

NDAs should enable information sharing for anything relevant to decision making, including financial statements and/or other sensitive information. I think it's good practice to not share information that isn't relevant to a SC's decision making, but if a good case could be made for needing specific information it seems likely it could be made available.

[slow lily]

I prefer this proposed council structure to the current one.
There are a bunch of apparent upsides to having more people in these council positions. E.g., further decentralization and adding more expertise together in one pot. I can see cases for even higher numbers of people involved in the future, but I think these four sub-councils would currently be enough.
The only concern that seems worth mentioning is the document alone doesn't outline any hard-veto or hard-yes options for IIPs or ICCPs to move forward to the main council.
As this is developing and governing a game, most decisions will affect Marketing, Game, and Strategy to some extent. So what if one council is opposing and another is pro? Does the community council decide with whom to give the decision-making power? Does it move onto the main council if a non-by-community-picked sub-council wants it to go to the main one?

[topaz berry]

even if 1 or two subcouncils disagree with an IIP it can still be voted in if the other 2 subcouncils want it and the team admin also approves it in the top council

if a single sub council dissaproves of an IIP they can assist in editing it to better suit everyone but if a compromise isnt found it can still go through if a majority on the top council is found right...

[sleek mason]

2 initial thoughts:
Was there talks for a blockchain/crypto sub-committee? Or would that live under strategy? I would like to follow other decentralized crypto projects in this regard and possibly make the contract creation something the community can have input on.

For the stages of an IIP from idea to approval v2
I wouldn't want the community manager to become a gatekeeper of ideas (even though I think Rich would do a fine job)

This section is a little concerning for me.

"If the Community Manager does not feel the idea is quite ready for a governance thread, they can provide additional feedback on what would be necessary."

I think this is generally fine but there should be a clear path forward even if the community manager is not supportive of or for whatever reason is not responsive to your idea.

[slow lily]

That’s what I assumed and Ani told me in voice as well, thx for confirming.

[true lark]

DeFi topics live under the Strategy council

It was discussed having this as its own subcouncil but the expectation was that there would not be enough topics for it to carry its own weight given that we are a gaming project.

[golden swift]

Its my understanding that the community council decides which subcouncil a proposal goes to. Then they approve or deny it there and then. If approved it goes to the high/main council

Those elected into those sub councils have been chosen. There's no. Sub council A says no and sub council B and C says yes. It goes through to those councils and if it's their decision and they say no then that's final. Maybe they provide feedback and its re structured to better suit.

[slow lily]

That was my question, but I do understand it now as if it would add more bureaucracy if you reframe the proposal and have it go through community to end up in a different council on the 2nd time, so you would just move it to main one and have the pro/con people make their case
(This part isn’t in the document, if true maybe adding it in a somewhat vague way would make sense, maybe „acting in the longterm interest of the DAO“ does cover it to enough of an extent already.

[viscid mist]

1 short sentence but imo pretty strong. Makes it more competitive, I like it.

[golden swift]

Competitive isn't the right word but yes its a powerful sentiment

[true lark]

Consequent

[golden swift]

Right as always

[balmy cloak]

Hi all, here are my thoughts on Gov v2. I made a duplicate and added my comments and revisions to the current version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xqi1GwKSRVvwr--AcdYSyg4ddh4wfSwo9i0aIt2FmIA/edit?usp=sharing

I only had time to sit down and read through it all today so I summarized my initial thoughts below.

Fundamental Issues:

1. Three-tiered Governance vs Two-tiered Governance – There is no need for community sub-council to gatekeep the IIPs when it can be lodged directly to the specialized sub-council. Not only does this make it more efficient it is also in line with decentralization. Each council is majority composed of community members.

You are also unduly burdening one sub-council while the specialized ones are just waiting for something to be escalated to them. And at that point they are either agreeing with minor revisions if any to what community sub-council approved or complete overhaul which wasted the time of the community sub-council. Either way is a wasted effort and inefficient.

2. Too many CCs – Having two (2) CC per sub-council is redundant. Appoint the Head or Lead CC for the specific sub-council which can have a proxy should he/she cant attend. Two CCs both in sub-council and in main council makes it more centralized since they only need one community vote to actually get their way.

I changed this to 4 elected community members and 1 appointed CC. We are getting more talent with close to the same amount being paid to council members in Gov v1. 17 v 5.

3. Lack of qualifications – The whole ethos of gov v2 was to ensure the right people are being elected yet there wasn’t any specific requirements to be able to run for said sub-councils. I introduced a bare minimum number of years of experience in the relevant field equivalent to a junior-level.

4. Community Manager/Governance CM – There’s a lot of work being stacked on to the Community Manager. We should think about having a DAO appointed GCM to handle all governance matters stated.

5. ***Penalties ***– Motion for no confidence is purely subjective. There’s no clear basis to trigger it nor any limitations. This can be both subject for abuse or rendered inadequate to enforce.

6. No change in council obligations – Everything still remains the same at least for IMC. Attend meeting, vote on IIPs. The only addition is you now have sub-councils helping ideate IIPs. Which I feel is not really a problem since theres a significant decrease in pay which is commensurate to their duties and responsibilities.

Minor Issues:

1. IIP proposal (escalating and approval) should just be strictly majority. If there are 5 members then 3 out of 5 is majority.
2. Why does eDAO implement the approved proposal isn’t this supposed to be just the team? First time to hear about eDAO being discussed outside of the whitepaper.
3. IIPs shouldn’t be limited only to $ILV holders. Gamers who don’t own $ILV shouldn’t be precluded from proposing good ideas.
4. Forfeiture of pay based on removal should be on the current quarter they are serving since previous quarter would have been paid out. In the same vein, resigned members should be paid pro-rate up to the time their resignation came into effect.
5. Nomination timeline in main document and appendix differ. Two weeks or 45 days?
6. No need to sign an acknowledgement. Just extend the NDA past the term of the council member up to 3 years.
7. Mandatory attendance should be 100% and define what justified absences are to avoid subjective assessment. Ex. Accident, Serious Illness or Injury, Death of a family member etc
8. Add visibility on how council members vote/approve/reject IIPs in the minutes.

[violet solar]

The fact that we currently have a community manager and the gov v2 document uses GCM and community manager interchangeably is a little confusing. It might not always be the same person. Or maybe it will be. Probably not an issue.

[hushed pulsar]

Given the increase in scope of the role, I was envisioning these as two separate individuals to ensure appropriate attention to both jobs. Agreed, that can be clarified further.

[celest shadow]

Basically I want to see if there is a need, there may very well be but there may not be we haven’t done this yet. But currently this is my job as it stands the fact that we called it a GCM was just for names sake in the situation we do need additional help there so there is a differentiation

[sleek mason]

I also felt the 3 layers were perhaps cumbersome. But I also liked the idea of a dedicated group that would help the community get IIPs moved through the system. Perhaps there should be roles in the sub-committees (one being a community coordinator to help with IIPs)?

Also set roles inside sub-committees might better set council obligations? Maybe chair(member that is on main council) Secretary(note taker)Community Coordinator(IIP helper)?

[balmy cloak]

I dont know why we would need a dedicated group to get IIPs moved through the system when you can impose it on all sub-councils to do that.

Off the top of my head, community makes an IIP and names it [Marketing] (IIP Proposal Name) and the sub-council responsible should pick it up asap. If not the GCM can bring the proposal to the sub-council's attention.

Technically, the one assigned to the IMC should also have added responsibility since theyre getting paid an additional 1500 usd. That chairperson can be the ad hoc conduit of the sub-council to the community on any engagement activities like council townhalls.

[celest shadow]

I see the community council as the ones on the ground watching and interacting with community the most, yeah it might be a marketing proposal but with marketing subcouncil may be dealing with other ideas at the time from previous #1020759212172775464 so they may miss something having community council sifting through and engaging makes sure the community is heard on the best way possible

[balmy cloak]

Can add that to the community sub-council D&R since theyre basically the catch-all sub-council. What I dont subscribe too is bottlenecking all IIPs to one sub-council. Its inefficient and unduly burdens one sub-council

[slow lily]

I like the idea of having a community council inbetween.
Being more in touch, communicating with people, and giving feedback on making/phrasing certain things in proposals before they get along further seems useful.
Extra council with extra people is a positive thing for the decentralization argument.
If the goal is to dedicate more specialized people to other councils, lots of forced communication/interaction with the community might turn some candidates away.
On another note, the sub-council's roles don't have obvious intricate cuts in who does what.
A balance change to Illuvials affects the game economy and marketing/branding (retaining/gaining players/revenue) as much as it does winrates of the changed Illuvials.
Community members X and Y might have different views/definitions of which council should do what. So having the community council delegate makes sense; otherwise, almost everything would land at the game council, as the average person wouldn't know the scope of the change.

[sleek mason]

Speaking for myself as someone not super connected but really wanting to move an IIP through the system… if I had a single person if there was a community coordinating role inside each sub council (or a group in current draft) would have been helpful. I really only reached out to council members after they specifically said that helping draft iips was something they liked doing as a council member during the council nominations interviews.

[hushed pulsar]

Shared some deeper thoughts on the proposed model in blog format. Great discussion and feedback already from the community here, and I'm starting to track the comments for further refinement of the proposal. Thanks to all for participating in this chat! #🎨〕community-content message

[topaz berry]

That wasn't my understanding and I really hope that isnt how it works because then its really easy for dumb bureaucratic gatekeeping to happen.

Any sub-council can champion any IIP and through their representative on the higher council raise that IIP to the higher councils attention and have a higher council vote on it (so that dumb gatekeeping doesnt happen)

as a matter of day to day acting they should first also have the other sub councils feedback on sed proposal before hand so that its edited and refined to the best that IIP can be, but if for whatever reason 1 of the 3 mid sub councils decides against an IIP that shouldnt be a blocker to it raising it to be voted on by the top council...

otherwise each subcouncil essentially has veto power against any IIP and thats not right

subcouncils are there to assist in the refinement and editing of proposals (thanks to more people and more skilled people) as well as in the fielding of more of the communities ideas into future proposals (meaning we make better use of our awesome communities potential) they arent there to be gatekeepers

[topaz berry]

I would personally also like to see the 3 other sub councils (the mid tier ones) also interactive at least semi-regularly with the community as they are more specialised and will be able to spot ideas that your average "community sub council member" may not

when i say interact w community, reading the various ideas and sharing their own ideas on occasion is good to me

i just think theres a lot that mid-tier can offer beyond just back room meetings

[plush olive]

In the current draft and flow, proposals always start at the community sub-council level. They could be started by any given sub-council or community member, but they'd start with community approval and consultation/feedback (basically, exactly like we're used to now).

From there they'd progress to 1 or more sub-councils. Assuming those sub-councils had been made aware of the proposal ahead of time and provided their feedback, there would be a (mostly) redundant vote, at which point the proposal would advance to the IMC for final approval. There probably does need to be explicit clarification for how things progress if a proposal is being voted on by multiple sub-councils, and is approved by 1 or more, but denied by 1 or more.

Scruba has some really good feedback on this that (IMO) warrants more discussion. The 3-Tier system made more sense when the non-community sub-councils were 3 members, as keeping tabs on the entirety of governance could conceivably be prohibitive for 2 community members to handle (while the team member's expectation would be to bring information from the team to that sub-council).

With 5 member sub-councils, I think it's relatively reasonable to expect those sub-councils to be informed on all relevant proposals. Cutting out the "bottom" tier does cause additional complication (really, it just requires defining process a bit better), but the community SC could exist on the second Tier as a sub-council focused on flow of information (both from the councils to the community and vice versa) and tasked with assisting in the day-to-day of community interaction and community oriented governance process.

[golden swift]

All I would ask is if every sub council is putting their opinion forward and voting on every proposal? What's the point of having multiple sub councils?? You might as well have them as one big sub council?

If everyone is looking at every single little thing not only is that too many people and no one is going to be able to communicate. But you mihht as well just have one 20 person council no?

[topaz berry]

because they have different specialisation...

having each specialisation seperated allows specific stuff to be discussed in their meetings alongside a team member that can give context on that specific realm

having one big council makes no sense, nothing could get done, 5 people is as big as any sub council should ever be imo just because much more than that and a meeting just wouldnt be productive

I have never and am by no means saying that "everyone should look at every single little thing", maybe you're mis understanding my point

[golden swift]

I think I am misunderstanding your point. You said 1 out of 3 councils can veto. The structure I am considering is the community council decides which sub council makes the most sense. If they have sent it to the game subcouncil for example why would the other 2 sub councils be looking at it?

And obviously the game sub council can reject the proposal?

[topaz berry]

I'm saying that any single sub-council should not have the power to veto EVER

I was saying that what you were previously saying essentially meant that any sub council could essentially veto which would be an issue

why would the other sub-councils be looking at it? - because many IIPs will actually have relevance for at least 2/3 mid tier councils specialty and some will be relevant to have input across the board, in those cases the involved sub-councils can collab, but no single sub-council (or even 2 sub-councils together) have the power to veto because they only hold 1 or 2 of the 5 top votes and it only takes 3 top votes to vote something in

hope that makes more sense

[golden swift]

It was my understanding that the high council only sees the proposal when the sub council submits it? But I could be wrong?

But in a world where the high council sees every single proposal then no single sub council can veto anything for sure. And I see your concern with sub councils being able to veto something but I disagree. If they think it won't work then why shouldn't they be able to veto it?

[topaz berry]

I agree that at least a single sub-council must submit a proposal to the higher council, I disagree that 1 of the 5 votes on the higher council can veto anything, each subcouncil only represents 1 vote out of the 5, veto power is only available to the eDAO, Sub-Councils have no veto power, they only have power to push something forward (or not) but they cant stop a different sub council pushing something forward

I dont think that this is going to be an issue often, but I believe these details need to be ironed out so that everything is clear and nothing weird can go on.

e.g. in the scenario that a proposal concerns all 3 mid tier subcouncils, if the proposal is good and everyone likes it but 1 of those 3 subcouncils just doesnt want it for some reason that no one else agrees with, then that sub-council cannot veto it, one of the other sub-councils can bypass them by themselves submitting it to the higher council. that sub-councils leader that disagreed with it can then vote against it, they can deliberate and bring their arguments against that proposal forward to the high council, but they cannot veto anything

might not seem like much, but to me this kind of clarification is super important to ensure that Council is a force for good and that no loop holes or weird bureaucratic blockades exist that can lead to negative gatekeeping

I think the single phrase that needs to be written into the proposal to solve this is "at least a single sub-council must champion a proposal to the higher council"

that way if a different sub-council doesnt champion it, doesnt mean another sub-council cant champion it

thats my 2 cents anyways, not going to beat this drum any further for now tho, ama let others chime in

[dark violet]

Broadly agree with this, well said*

*I disagree with experience minimums as they’re largely arbitrary and experience =/= competence

My biggest fundamental concern here is the injection of too much bureaucracy/process too prematurely

[golden swift]

I think I need to draw up a very clear flow diagram. I'm not sure what it would look like but for example.

Community sentiment > community sub council votes and decides on specialised sub council > sub council votes yes or no to relevancy and makes appropriate changes > high council does their thing

The high council Is still a majority vote. In my head the sub council when it comes across them can say yes or no. I didn't expect the high council to vote on every single proposal. Only things that manage to get through the layers. But maybe this needs to be reconsidered?

If the subcouncils job is moreso ironing out the kinks than making any true judgements then that is also valid.

[topaz berry]

I still agree that many proposals will never touch high council, because many wont find anyone in any sub council to champion them (because on average most ideas arent worth doing lol)

The way I see it in my head is:

Idea (can come from community member or someone in a council position) > 1 of 4 Sub-Councils (most likely community, but I'd like to see other sub-councils getting stuck in also) sees this idea and feels its good enough to refine into an IIP > Refinement > IIP Draft Submitted to community for discussion > if edited repeat previous step > proceed to high council

this way all 4 sub-councils are much more concerned with assisting proposals and working towards having the strengths and ideas of our community being brought forward in their meetings to get context on their feasibility from the team members on their sub-council

I dont want this huge structure to just become a huge gateway that makes governance even more unapproachable, I think this is a great oppertunity to build something that's built to actually assist community engagement in governance

maybe what im saying is not exactly whats in this draft, but I think it should be strongly considered adding to the list of sub-council members responsibilities to be involved at least to some extent with the community and with assisting governance engagement and making it easier to interact with rather than harder, more bureaucratic and gatekeepy

[golden swift]

I guess theres a heirarchy discussion here. I always saw community subcouncil as the lowest tier and very communicative with the community. But you are suggesting the 4 are almost on the same level and have very similar roles just with different expertise.

Worth considering

[topaz berry]

I very much find that idea of them being "essentially" at the same level to be far more compelling

and I see no reason to seperate those 3 mid-tier sub-councils from the community apart from their contact with community sub council

I'm okay with mid-tier having more expertise and hence spending less time on average w community than community sub council, but id like to still see them involved and think itd benefit governance as a whole more

[hushed pulsar]

I view the three specialized sub-councils having two primary responsibilities - "iron out the kinks"/assess technical viability before passing proposals onto the IMC, and approve proposals that only impact their specific sub-council. While this isn't in the governance draft yet, there are certain things that don't warrant the attention of the IMC but are important to capture. The spider IIP is a perfect example of that. The Game sub-council should be the final arbiter on such proposals, and have authority to evaluate and approve/reject such ideas, maintaining a perspective on scope at their level of control. This idea puts a greater authority with the sub-councils, while also reducing bureaucracy for minor ideas. I'm also aligned that no council has "veto" power, but the sub-councils have the authority to reject proposals that aren't technically possible or exceed the current resource limitations. The IMC representative from that sub-council should share the rationale in detail with the other IMC members who then take that information back to their respective sub-councils, where the proposal could be reworked if deemed that important.

[topaz berry]

agree completely, but ask if on top of what you said, is there any room for those specialized sub council members also communicating with the community and assisting in public dialogues/debates (in the forums) and assisting in governance education to some extent (for those that are more mentor minded)

[hushed pulsar]

100% - Sub-councils shouldn't be "head in the sand" only focused on their specialization and avoid community engagement. In fact, I would say the opposite that community members serving on those councils are responsible for ensuring relevant community sentiment is shared in their discussions. The elected community members own community sentiment/feedback engagement and CC's own team sentiment/feedback on ideas. The sub-councils just offer a bit more of a specialist perspective while the community sub-council needs to be more generalist in their engagement.

[topaz berry]

Can we ensure that this is plain and clear in the IIP within the written "responsibilities"

dont want anyone misunderstanding the role requirements

[hushed pulsar]

On it - I'll make sure its in. Combined with @balmy cloak 's feedback and the other discussion here, its clear there's additions and clarifications needed, but I'm glad we're having this discussion publicly rather than continuing to try to perfect it and then get feedback. The system works (so far)!

[topaz berry]

way prefer having these discussions out in the open so all can assist ☺️

[golden swift]

Don't worry the council agrees with you there 😛

[celest shadow]

I guess I didnt express myself correctly... The point would be for these subcouncil members to do just that, because they are 3 of them at least straight from the community

[plush olive]

I share your concern - If implemented today, Gov V2 would be excessively bulky for current needs, but I do absolutely think it needs to be in place prior to game launch.

I also agree with your point about experience/formal qualification not necessarily being related to competence, but I'm also biased. I do think vetting for claims about experience is sufficient, beyond that I'm comfortable with letting the community decide through voting on who they want to represent them.

[hushed pulsar]

To point 1, I'm in favor of proactive versus reactive structure. Build what we will need before we need it and don't have it.

As for qualifications, I started writing this, but this was an area I was worried about the dao achieving today. I'd personally rather have engaged, passionate individuals today, and work towards more stringent professional/academic qualifications. Engagement and passion feel more valuable today as we build.

[balmy cloak]

Reading the proposal only marketing had some semblance of qualifications while game and strategy had none.

If the goal was to ensure we have the specialized skillsets, what stops the community from electing people via popularity despite having any semblance of qualifications.

You yourself put it as engagements and passion as valuable. How can we ensure this translates to their specific sub council role?

[hushed pulsar]

That's the big question for now. I'm happy to discuss what qualifications would look like for the other subcouncils. I just don't want to see the pool of engaged candidates being reduced below the number of qualified individuals today.
Honestly, I wrote (and kept) marketing, but wasn't happy with what I was coming up with for game and strategy in the drafting process

I also didn't want to write qualifications that essentially hand picked the candidates based on familiarity with a number of the individuals engaged here.

[violet solar]

Lol yeah. That would be a mistake. Writing the role for an individual.

[balmy cloak]

I totally get this. Its a hard to balance which is why I took the approach to be very broad and only gate in terms of junior assoc role (at least 2 years of relevant exp). What I was aiming for was to ensure we dont have nuisance candidates who have no experience in said field and getting voted in due to popularity or meme.

The counter here is that if people dont have the broad qualifications theres always community council which only requires you to hold ILV to be qualified to run.

[hushed pulsar]

Is the nuisance candidate/council members something else that could be dealt with via No Confidence vote at this point? Expand expectations for such motions to be brought?
Game and Strategy are trickier councils to determine qualifications for. We want gamers to help balance the games, and not just game creators.
Strategy is even trickier for what deems qualifications today. Honestly, that's the role I would go for, but I don't know what qualifies me for that other than my experience here.

[plush olive]

Engagement and passion are coorelated to popularity. Like anything, there are exceptions to this, it's not a rule.

In the same way that someone with academic qualifications can be ineffective, someone with popularity can also be ineffective.

I work with both electricians and engineers. People's academic qualifications don't say much about their ability to effectively do their job. Some engineers are junior, and are great at their jobs. Some are senior and honestly do worse work than a motivated high school student. The same could be said for electricians. The qualification does matter, but by including a stringent set of requirements, we're artificially limiting the number of people who can fill a role, and we're doing so without a full understanding of how the role will evolve, or what the skillsets required might be. We can guess, but is guessing and being wrong better than leaving things more open until we can assess what skills are required?

From my experience thus far, the most important skills to be on council right now are:
Reading/Writing
Communication (Verbal + Written)
Time Management + Planning
Teamwork

There are qualifications that make a council member more qualified to weigh in on certain topics, but the core skill set isn't necessarily something that an academic background implies. It seems premature to impose rigid restrictions on who can run. If it turns out that a sub-council really needs 1 person with a background in Finance, we can add that in. If the community sub-council ends up needing at least 1 person who can prepare and release video content, we can add that in.

I'll admit I'm biased in this regard - by the requirements you've suggested, I'm not qualified to sit on a council. Playing a lot of WoW isn't a qualification that has been listed. It does contribute to my ability to manage time, communicate (hopefully effectively) and work as a team though, as do other experiences that also wouldn't be appropriate to include as requirements.

[balmy cloak]

No. cause by definition the motion of no confidence is only brought into place if theyre not attending or voting. I can be an unqualified marketing council member and just vote with the majority and attend meetings as an example. Council has no grounds to vote me out.

I agree on gamers. Should have included that in as an example in my version. (also to answer @plush olive) gaming experience should be considered with relevant experience to the duties and responsibilities outlined.

[plush olive]

TL;DR: Requirements are fine, but I'd strongly prefer to leave the requirements loose until we can see this structure in action and make determinations about what is effective and what isn't effective.

[balmy cloak]

You basically gave an example that in its core agree with me on qualifications. As an electrician or engineer, you need to show you have qualifications to be one. A license, graduate from a trade school etc. You wont be hiring a plumber to be an electrician even if he thinks he can be one and has no experience prior.

What you wrote down are soft skills. These are almost always preferred/required in any management or higher role.

To add, if number of years of experience is a detriment, not ideal, but can be dropped provided the core qualifications remain in place: "having relevant experience in the industry/field/or similar"

[plush olive]

The soft skills are more important than the hard skills, in my humble opinion. Following the analogy, you're right, you don't hire a plumber to install a new electrical panel, but we're not installing electrical panels, the team is. We're deciding if we're actually going to need power in the garage in a year or not.

I think it's just important to keep this in mind - councils are decision making bodies, we're not doing "work" in the same way that say, an accountant might do work at a job. Councils are making judgement calls, not directly building products. Context is still very important (I've seen X in my position doing Y), but a lot of what might come with qualifications isn't going to be used in the same way it would be at a normal job.

[hushed pulsar]

Ultimately we do want diverse experience to bring different perspectives and opinions. We've seen that work well with the current council.
It's really a two sided problem- get the right individuals to run, and trust the community to vote for a diverse body. Addition of qualifications fixes part of the first half, restricting who can run to take pressure off the community to pick the "right" candidates.

[balmy cloak]

Ill dive deeper. Its the IMC who makes the decisions on the high level - approving IIPs. But its the sub-councils who ideate, and refine IIPs. If you dont possess the qualifications to be on that sub-council, what value can you add specific to it?

Councils need to draw from both internal and external information (experience) to draw proper conclusions and I just feel that if you allow just anyone to be "qualified" to be voted in specific sub-councils, we are inviting IIPs which would miss the mark.

Again, those who dont have the proper qualifications CAN always run for community. Im speaking for myself but I am never gonna run for marketing because I dont have any experience or qualifications for it but because I technically can, should I?

[celest shadow]

I think what you’re saying makes sense to a degree, but that’s the point of only being able to run for 1 sub council as well. When we start doing interviews/ and you are answering community questions will you be able to hold up against someone who does have the marketing experience? Will you want to waste your opportunity running for a council you don’t even feel qualified for? I think this kind of solves it self in that way. And as for if IIPs that miss the mark, that’s why CCs would be there and the IMC and even myself to help stop these types of things from even occurring or making it to the IMC. Communication between councils will be huge in this entire structure

[balmy cloak]

I can get behind this if youre saying that the team will be vetting and disqualifying candidates who dont hold up to a certain qualification.

[celest shadow]

That wasn’t what I saying, I was speaking about IIPs, as for candidates we talked about having a vetting process but that kinda kills decentralization if the team is saying who can/cannot run

I think thats why gating running for councils is also a bad idea. Just have a more specific process for showing who the best candidates are. I think for the most part our community has done a pretty good job as we’ve progressed with governance especially this epoch.

[plush olive]

I'd posit that someone who is extremely passionate about marketing could be a good addition to a marketing sub-council, in spite of having no formal marketing training or professional experience in marketing. If I were to vote for such a person, I'd want to see proof of their passion (through engagement etc.) prior to voting for them. Such a person could add value to the marketing sub-council by doing research on other projects' marketing, helping with day-to-day planning for the sub-council, community consultation + ideation etc. By virtue of not being an expert, such a person could also help ensure understandability of proposals, because ultimately proposals do need to be reviewed and gain support with the community.

Thus far, I haven't seen any proposals that are so technically complex that a passionate person couldn't make a reasonable determination about them, provided that person is willing to spend time and energy doing research, and is also willing to defer to people who have technical expertise about specific details that are beyond their scope of understanding.

We specifically have team members on each sub-council for that reason - To provide technical expertise on the relevant subject.

[balmy cloak]

True. But using the same logic "that’s why CCs would be there and the IMC and even myself to help stop these types of things from even occurring or making it to the IMC." also kills decentralization. If the other community elect members wants to vote it through why should the team stop it 😄

This is just me finding holes. And best way to avoid in my humble opinion is to find a way to stop un-qualified candidates from running.

Making it clear this discourse is just to evaluate and see all sides to arrive at a solution that balances what were all aiming for.

[plush olive]

An objectively "bad case" scenario is that only 3-4 people meet the requirements to run for a given sub-council, and are all elected by virtue of having qualifications. I'd just like to avoid that scenario unless it's provable that someone can't perform the role without the qualifications, and right now I don't think it is provable.

[hushed pulsar]

I disagree that passion makes one qualified, particularly as we drive at specialization and experience. I agree that academic qualifications are the only means of achieving that.
Ultimately, the dao may want to impose more stringent qualifications to ensure sufficient caliber of candidates, but I don't believe the bar can be that high today.
I'm also with Rich that the ability to run for only one council aids in the self-vetting.

[celest shadow]

Im not saying stop it by saying No it’s not happening. But more like hey these are the reasons from an internal point of view that your IIP makes no sense to move forward with, this could be the case with a qualified council member or even if an “unqualified” person made it onto council

[balmy cloak]

Thats fair. I retract my statement, sir. ❤️

[slow lily]

I think it will be difficult to formulate less broad qualifications for a space like gaming and marketing in gaming/social media, one could argue the 16year old high school kid with a 100k follower yt channel understands more about marketing than the phd candidate at harvard in this specific field they are successful at.
Gaming being a "big" industry is fairly new which also makes classic education lacking a bit behind in staying up to date with what works here etc.
(not trying to bias this tbh, but when I started doing things in this industry people told me having 3+ years exp in anything exactly to this industry related was worth more than any degree they could have had in terms of getting hired to do anything)

[balmy cloak]

From this fruitful discussion, Im seeing that there should be a "detriment" clear and concise both to would be nominees and to the potential voters whod be "qualified". The barrier to entry should be low enough to be invite everyone who has interest but significant enough to ensure were attracting the right candidates. Were basically, going to be leaving it up to the voters to decide.

As @hushed pulsar said, thats the big question for now. What would that look like? 😂

[plush olive]

I fundamentally disagree that academic qualifications are the only way people become competent in a field of work. I'll agree that they are an easy metric to verify.

I'm much happier with "Experience working in a field" than with "Obtained a degree in X". The latter is testing (mostly) for someone's fiscal means, when we should be testing for competence and drive.

[slow lily]

I would prefer a merit based gated entry a lot more than any credential based one is what I want to say I guess.

[lilac steeple]

In my opinion

・It's a bit too early to have such a bureaucratic system for a 2 year old startup that hasn't completed a single game and has never made a single dollar in game sales yet. It’s just too early IMO.

・Maybe most community members cannot/will not fully understand this sub-council thing (remember there are non-English native community as well) and they will just lose interest in ILV governance even more than they do now (see this thread?). Not sure if it's a good thing for the protocol. thats it

[balmy cloak]

Why cant we have both/either/or? "with relevant experience or degree in similar fields or industry"

[celest shadow]

How is this verified to be truth though and who’s verifying? I would say it’s up to voters probably?

[balmy cloak]

I thought team would still be vetting to verify? Nominees are joining the election with the expectation to be doxxed anyway so their experience and qualifications can be doxxed to the team/GCM for verification.

[slow lily]

I do have problems with turning things into popularity contest, that are likely to help less qualified people who act in bad faith, but it is also easy to act in bad faith with "worked X years here" studied Y for some years etc. while you picked up coffee.
Almost all the influencer I know have no formal education in marketing themself as their own brand or on representing any of their sponsors, yet they are the ones being sucessful.

If we can´t trust in people voting with their own wallets interest and voting for who seems to be the most qualified, why have voting at all?

[hushed pulsar]

Being decentralized, it's ultimately left in the community's hands who will be on council. While influencers may be successful individual marketers, I personally don't want all influencers in a sub council. I also don't want all ex- Activision marketing directors. All we can do is do our best to get diverse, engaged individuals that want to run, and leave it to the community to choose.

[slow lily]

yeah, I just don´t want to exclude any influencer or any ex-activision person based on arbitrage reason.

[plush olive]

Agree with this, vetting people's claims is completely sufficient, let the voters decide who they want to represent them beyond that. That will ensure a diverse representation (which we've honestly had pretty good luck with so far, a pretty wide range of representation has been seen, both in past and current councils).

[sleek mason]

I’m having a hard time thinking of IIPs going through marketing sub committee or even marketing being something we want to be community driven? What are the arguments for the marketing SC?

[slow lily]

I think part of marketing is retaining and gaining new players, which is done through changes to the game. E.g. every game changed from a number for ranking to silver-gold-platinum, that is a marketing thing, not a game thing.

[balmy cloak]

I like this line of discussion, and best way to do this is actually requiring themselves to doxx for people to check their background and experience. Question now is: "Do we want to do this?" I know a lot of people dont want to doxx at the same time shouldnt we impose a higher standard for potential council members?

Gah. Im overthinking lol. So much to balance. But Im already leaning towards letting the community decide but should have spoon fed information. This can be done by having clear duties and responsibilities per sub-council and actually having verified information from the nominee. Now if they still want to vote "un-qualified" people in then.... "we get what we deserved" lol

[celest shadow]

I guess this might be something needed to be done by legal if that’s the route we went… you’re talking potentially minimum 14 ppl (quite likely at least double that) across the world to vet/verify claims

Just for running

[balmy cloak]

yeah a bit cumbersome but can be checked by providing a linkedin profile etc. Usually HR does this not legal though. Just throwing out ideas but id rather they just doxx themselves to the public to not burden the team

[plush olive]

I know we spoke about this the other day in DMs. I'm for doxxing, insofar as required to back one's claims. The current draft does require doxxing (to a specified person), most of my concerns are around the process and whether we'd be excluding some candidates who have legitimate concerns about being publicly associated with a crypto project (could be a concern because of RL employment or other reasons). Mostly I just want doxxing to be proportionate to claims, and done in a way where it can't be made public (but can be verified by someone trustworthy.

[balmy cloak]

Yep! Legitimate concern and thats on the nominee. Rather than the DAO's concern but we should have some balance here. Are we now to burden the team as Rich mentioned just to accommodate "nominees" or should we just lay the burden on to them to doxx themselves to the public.

[violet solar]

19 thread followers… not many

[balmy cloak]

Yeah 😦 Overworld and Holidays. Hopefully picks up afte new years but we have I:Zero coming lol

[sleek mason]

I think if some set solid requirements for each sub committees would be better then credentials. If you feel you can’t fulfill the requirements then you will be less likely to apply. And the community would be informed on what to ask the candidates to see if they would be a good fit for the sub committee.

[slow lily]

Little curveball, but somewhat to the topic of who to have on the council.

The main point I see in this council structure is to avoid running into similar problems as, currently, big gaming studios do with being "enslaved" to their stock price, which is mainly determined by short-term earnings.
Having a mix of a corporate point of view (max player numbers, max revenue) and a community-based one (max quality) will lead to a strategy closer to what Apple's "Motto" was/is of making a great product and surpassing their own market-leading ones. In contrast, many others would just let the cash cows run and take profits (many current games could be optimized, but ROI isn't secure or fast enough often. E.g. people complain about battlenet and riot clients for years, but they never get fixed).
Reason to bring this up is, ILV being a publicly traded token makes the studio more similar to that structure*

[slow lily]

governance talk is prob the hard core of the hard core of the hard core people^^
I can see following this chat would be very boring for 99,9%

[balmy cloak]

https://tenor.com/view/jackblack-hardcore-schoolofrock-gif-4144192

[sleek mason]

If we held the election today for the 14 community members for the sub councils do we think we would get 14 at least jr lvl qualified people for the roles?

[violet solar]

Probably depends on what previous experience would be accepted as being in a “related field”

But councilors are not executives. It’s a governing body. While you do need some with specific skills when writing bylaws or even motions, how a proposal can be implemented could be left to those that are paid to develop games or secure marketing deals.

While I have some fairly obvious bias here, I think public doxing will reduce the variety of backgrounds and perspectives in the council composition. The most cautious, deliberate thinkers are going to be far more likely to pass on public doxing. While innovative entrepreneurs will be far more likely to be just fine with public doxing. The problem is that the best governance has balanced representation that is willing to communicate and compromise.

I do think having an “odd man” does help promote out of the box ideas and solutions.

[balmy cloak]

Looking at gov V2 loosely, other than any job security exposure or conflicts doxxing for sub council role shouldn't make you personally liable unless you're sitting on the IMC. Those seated on the IMC are the governing body. They're the decision makers. Sub council members are merely the workhorse ideating drafting revising. This is just an opinion though. Don't quote me lol

[violet solar]

It’s always gonna be personal social and professional separation. Liability is not the concern.

[plush olive]

I wouldn't run for council if public doxxing were a requirement, and I have no job security exposure or other conflicts that would prevent me from doing so. I just don't feel sharing my information on the internet is in my best interest, or required to verify the qualifications I ran for a council position on.

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that someone else might feel the same way, especially if they had concerns about job security.

Maybe that's fine, but we should be clear that we're catering to a subset of our community if we pursue public doxxing.

[balmy cloak]

You guys are right. It's a balance. But what you guys are saying is the rest of the Dao has to conform to the preference of a few.

I mean look at the whole period of gov v1. How many were not doxxed? I may be wrong here but I think it's only blickter who expressed about not doxxing. Everyone was practically doxxed.

End of the day which one is more beneficial to the Dao? What process will help us and not lay the burden to the team and/or community.

[violet solar]

We may not have the same understanding of what doxxing entails. Many councilors have been various degrees short of fully public doxxing.

[plush olive]

Rah was not doxxed (AFAIK), Stormi and jeff weren't doxxed until they started Polemos, I don't believe Ami was doxxed either.

I think we need to look at what value we get by requiring doxxing instead of requiring people to justify why they might not want their information out in the public. If the point is verification of claims, can that be accomplished without requiring full information to be made public? I think it probably can be. I'm happy to share my Steam profile or reboot my WoW account to verify my claims, but having my full name and/or work history available on the internet isn't something I'm interested in.

If we want to actually verify the claims of the current council (i.e. work history), we'd require more information than is available currently, and I honestly don't think it's necessary or would result in a net benefit for the DAO.

[balmy cloak]

That may be true. There's full on doxxing and limited.

This discussion came up because we were moving away from hard qualifications to ensuring voters are informed of the candidates are the right fit which brought us to finding a way to verify claims by nominees.

We either have

1. Public doxxing
2. Team verification
3. No verification

Not sure if theres other mechanics. Each has their pros and cons.

To your point blickter, isnt that what we're trying to correct? Getting more information to promote the right candidates.

Cause if qualifications don't matter then it should be equal barrier of entry to all sub councils. Just be holders of $ILV.

Status quo.

[plush olive]

I care a lot more about the practical value that each council member can bring than about the nuances of where they've worked or whether they are ok with their information being on the internet. I think that equation changes when you're dealing with founders of a crypto project, as the possibility for a rug exists, but the DAO already has backstops in place to prevent anything extremely harmful or malicious through the eDAO.

I'm happy with limited doxxing to the team, again, with the amount of information required being proportional to the claims being made, and limited to what is necessary to prove the claims someone is making. Basically, is this person who they say they are? Ok, good enough.

I haven't seen any problems related to people being someone other than who they've claimed to be. To put it frankly, I think all the major issues with any council thus far have been issues related to people not actually getting enough done. I don't want to get too off-topic by going into causes, but would past councils be more productive or communicative if they had more doxxed people? I don't think so.

Qualifications don't mean much to me, I'm sorry. I'll always judge people by their output and the value they provide, I could give a damn about qualifications for the sake of qualifications.

[balmy cloak]

Qualified people doesn't mean just education or degree. It's also experience and capabilities

[violet solar]

none of those were. And I believe none of these guys were fully doxxed either Sheep, DK (only now since on team), volkin, vetemor, deraji, scoriox, ani (maybe he is). Maybe they were/are and I just haven’t cared to look up their first and last names on their LinkedIn profile or whatever.

[plush olive]

Again, if it's not put into practice I don't care about experience or capability. Someone could have built the Eiffel tower, but if they are going to sit on the council collecting their stipend without contributing, that experience is irrelevant to me.

I just prefer to make assessments about people based on their actions instead of an arbitrary list of past accomplishments that might indicate what they are capable of in certain scenarios that are almost certainly not 1:1 with council duties.

If someone has a wealth of experience and capability, it has to translate into value for the DAO, or it's actually irrelevant.

I'll tie this in to the current council and why I think it can operate effectively. Deraji was provably active in governance, staking, election analysis etc. before running for council. Scoriox makes tons of content about all manner of Illuvium content, and was doing so prior to running. Ani was a huge part of Gov V2 and has been active in Illuvium's governance. These people are all translating their experience into value, which is what actually matters. Their qualifications inform their decisions, but don't actually create value unless put into practice.

[balmy cloak]

I hate to poke holes but what would then be your basis for a proper candidate? Being active on discord? Writing meaningful replies to people?

Cause what you do as a council member only became readily apparent when you sat there. How then can we know what we do as normal members translate to being a good council member.

I'm sorry but I really disagree with your analogy. Experience in a relevant field is different from experience on a totally unrelated to being in specialized sub council.

Id get someone who designed the Eiffel tower to sit as council who oversees erecting buildings over someone who's vocal on the forums about how to build a building

Also... There's community sub council. I keep harping on this. No qualifications go run for community

[plush olive]

Happy to disagree on this, but I'd take someone who actually contributes over someone who sits on their laurels and doesn't contribute. Not contributing doesn't provide any value.

I'd value past contributions WAY above someone's qualifications on paper. Governance is one of the areas you can actually prove your capability to contribute to without being on the council. If someone arrives at an insightful conclusion that results in value for the DAO, does it matter if they are a PhD or if they work at McDonalds? Everything is subject to peer review anyways.

[craggy gull]

Would working at McDonald’s be a desirable trait because I can make that happen if it’ll increase my chances

[topaz berry]

I also have to say I disagree on this.
In a day and age where many large and professional companies no longer even care what qualifications people have, just experience and potential, its kinda mad that in a progressive, new tech/gaming company we would have a qualification barrier.

I dont care about peoples qualifications, I care about their experience, competence and passion for Illuvium (and they must have some of all 3 for sure) and as @celest shadow said I think that sorts itself out purely by people only being able to run for 1 sub council at a time and that voters will see peoples interviews and if someone is popular but incompetent for the role their running for I believe the DAO will not let them in for the most part.

And if this means someone less experienced gets in every once in a while, then good, they have 4 fellows to balance them and frankly new eyes can be really useful, if we make it impossible for new perspectives to enter we honestly screw ourselves.

I think doxxing to the team is a must.
Doxxing publicly should not be required as pointed out by @violet solar it really culls the types of people who would run and prevents some that we need to create a well rounded council

[balmy cloak]

So I think it needs to be clarifief out again that qualifications is not just degree or education. It can also be experience and capabilities. When I say qualifications it should be clearly outlined since there's a specific expectation for the specialized subcouncil.

What I was hoping to avoid is getting someone voted in who has no relevant experience or background. The advocacy here is that it should be clear what the expected experience is for specialized council roles. I'll be using experience rather than qualifications from now on to ensure we're all on the same page here lol.

Ye no issues on doxxing it was just a conundrum on how to verify people. Seems like the best thing is either to have someone in the team do a quick look at their LinkedIn or whatever profile to verify or have no vetting in place.

[topaz berry]

at least some background I agree with

I'm fine with no background check during the nominations period but with nominees being made aware that if they are voted in they will need to sign an NDA and therefore DOX to the team and that a background check will be run on them to verify as much of their experience claims as possible

vetting every nominee is too much work, but vetting elected council members once every 6 months and some will be the same as before so it doesnt seem like too much work for HR person to do

[sleek mason]

I feel the best people for the council are thought leaders, critical thinkers, and good communicators. It is hard to prove these qualifications, but you can gleam them from interviews and how they have contributed to past discussions.

[sleek mason]

One aspect that has come up often within the community is financial opacity. Would it be feasible for the treasury board to have a community member (and a minority representation) Maybe even 3 core contributors, 1 appointed advisor, 1 community member?

[sleek mason]

An illustration of my modified structure. Community is similar to main and not a separate sub-council where a council person is elected inside their sub-council for a "community lead" role. The Community Council would still fulfill the same role as in the current draft (helping draft and move IIP/IPPCs through the system). Perhaps a community lead could come with extra compensation since it would involve more work.

[sleek mason]

Was just doing a thought experiment with the 1st 10 ideas and what sub-committee it might fall under if it got to that far.

Limited edition holo - dark holo plushies with gated access > Marketing
Don't release more land plots. Just cap it at 20k > Strategy
Governance v2 Draft > Strategy
Reduce Council Pay by %25 > Strategy

Merch as advertisement > Marketing

Climate Seasons in the Overworld > Gaming

Illuvium API > Gaming

Staking app updates > Strategy

Mobile Overworked alternative Ranger missions > Gaming

Future Illuvium Game Mode 5v5 > Gaming

[true lark]

The Teasury Board fulfills a very specific role in this instance when there are large financial outlays requiring quick action and confidentiality. They always pass their IIP to the Main council so the final vote is done by the decentralized council. However, it’s intentionally set up so that no community members are on it and it is not a council. If we turn it into a council, the function should go away and we would just route all of those IIPs through the other Subcouncils (primarily Strategy). However, if we do that we have NDA and confidentiality topics with all of the subcouncils because potentially any topic could come up in this way (imagine a major partnership deal going through marketing or a gameplay mechanic intended to compete against an emerging open world collector game).

[muted cliff]

I think I'm one of the few people that actually read all of the nominations from the nominees last time around and watched almost all the TSG interviews.

In my opinion currently the nominations lack a lot. All of the nominees can write whatever they want + nobody cares about what they write in that 300 words max text. But I think TSG interviews are really useful and you can learn a lot about nominees from them. Also that public forum with some of the candidates was helpful. But the nominations have to change with the gov v2. (In my opinion the votes would be the same if there is 0 text written from every candidate - it's completely useless at the moment in my opinion)

Let's say I'm new to Illuvium and I want to decide on who to vote for in the council nominations. Am I deciding on that 300 words max where nominees can write literally anything and nobody is confirming that. We don't need to know the names of the nominees, but we do have to know their qualifications. (As Scruba already said - qualifications are not just you university degree, it's everything, experience, past project, etc.)

I'm not saying it happened before but we can't have nominees writing about their qualifications without checking that (either right away of after they have been voted in). Statement like (I made up all of this and I'm not talking about any past candidates) "I was the advisor in the Ministry of Finance", "I was working in Marketing for 3 of the Top 10 companies in the past 5 years.", "I was designing games for Riot.", etc... just have to be check by the team.

Nominees qualification never matter before that much, but now it should matter more and we should give our best to not have any bad actors as nominees.

[golden swift]

I think qualified and unqualified are completely subjective. And I feel like leaving that subjectiveness to the discretion of the community and more specifically voters is perfect the way it is.

Speaking from personal experience I have not been in the design field super long (3 years). I have learnt 70% of my skills being on the job even though I studied design for 4 years at university. And I feel like 99% of jobs are like that, the council included. Especially since we are more the decision makers than builders themselves like blickter said.

In my experience qualifications aren't a big deal. That being said I feel life experience especially in a given industry definitely adds to the value you bring to things in general including the council itself. That being said I feel like the community sees through this very very quickly, I give them a lot of credit for their judgement and if someone was 'deceitful' or unqualified for a position in terms of them bringing no value the community will sniff that out quickly.

Also a vote of no confidence to my knowledge does not have to follow a missed meeting or whatever. The other council members or community can begin that vote whenever they want. I feel there's definitely some fear of being disliked for beginning that vote but maybe that's a personal fear and it will prevent its use. For example if I wanted to make a vote of no confidence against blickter (Obviously I dont). Not only would blickter be pissed with Me even if it's not personal. The community would not only think ill of me but if blickter is voted out then that level of embarrassment for him would be savage as well and I feel like everyone here and in Web 3 is too nice for that tbh 🤣🤣. I would propose an anonymous system to make this more approachable if people feel it's necessary. But a forced system is definitely a step in the right direction. Eg 2 missed meetings = automatic vote of no confidence conducted.

TLDR: qualifications are hocus. Experience is valuable but I trust the communities judgement as a whole. Vote of no confidence = scary

I will talk about another piece of personal experience and I know I harp on it but it's relevant. My job as a designer isn't to make pretty pictures. I am what I would call a creativity translator.

My role consists of bridging the gap between different groups. I can understand engineers when they speak (which is hard). I can understand everyday people when they provide feedback and I can connect the two together. This is how you get the iPhone. It's a connection of the possibilities of the tech and the engineers behind it. Directly linked to the needs and convenience of the consumer.

What I am saying is BOTH parties are as valuable as each other and the product does not exist with only one, trust me. The point is that everyday people with their own unique experiences can add a lot of value and information that someone qualified or experienced could never add. Especially as they have a fresh mind, there's something about a lack of knowledge that is extremely powerful and I implore you to never underestimate it. It is what makes an outcome great otherwise you end up with just the engineers perspective and that doesn't sell.

Probably a good example is game developers and gamers. If you consider the average life of a game developer in the industry they may work on 1 genre of video game their entire life. However a gamer has experienced thousands of games and dozens of genres.

Now take the person who isn't a gamer. They have found their one game that they actually enjoyed. Their Pokemon Go. Their perspective is way different than the one who has played every pokemon game and then played pokemon go. They needed to truly want to play a game to bother giving it a try. I want to know why they played it. Why they enjoyed it and how I can replicate that for Illuvium.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk

[golden swift]

@balmy cloak I'd like to pose a question. I am mostly aligned with Blickter with all the points. In particular regarding qualifications and experience.

However I must admit that Illuvium and governance will evolve over the next 6-12 months. No one is here right now. We need to accept that if we were to create an experience barrier of any kind right now. Either there will be no one with the experience required that runs for a sub council. OR an equally realistic outcome that you get 1 perfect candidate and 2-3 that lucked out by having the experience but don't care at all about Illuvium. So they collect the position and stipend because they just so happen to be in the marketing industry. As Illuvium grows I would like to see us be more.particular about the overall process but since I expect gov V2 in Q1. There's no way I see it function in the short term

How would you feel about the latter being your marketing council?

[inland wraith]

I dig the changes proposed.

[balmy cloak]

Ill tackle each point:

1. Qualifications are subjective - Yes to a point it is. Voters decide who amongst the nominees are "qualified". However, what Ive been trying to point out is that there should be some broad guide or bare minimum for SPECIALIZED sub-councils.

I tried introducing X number of years but I agree that it may be too constricting so I was hoping we still have as a bare minimum of relevant experience in the field removing number of years as a requirement.

2. Design Example. You just proved my point. Would you have gotten a design job if you didnt study 4 years of design? Adding your degree + experience just shows that you have more than enough capabilities to do your job as a junior to mid level designer.

3. Qualifications are more than degrees. I really really really do not get why everyone is strictly associating qualifications for degree or education. Quick google defines qualifications as: "a quality or accomplishment that makes someone suitable for a particular job or activity". That can include degree/education, experience, capabilities etc.

The whole point is to ensure were not getting 0 experience people on specialized sub-councils. Experience in a relevant field will always count. Its also supposed to serve as a guide for both nominees and voters as to what is expected from a member of that sub-council

4. Vote of no confidence - the draft posted lays out very specific conditions to have vote of no confidence.

(a) Failure to vote
(b) Repeated unjustified absence to meetings
(c) Repeated unjustified failure to review and approve draft reports
(d) Failure to sign the NDA
(e) Violation of the Code of Ethics

Even if these are present its still subjective to the council voting on passing the motion. Im not saying it will happen, Im saying it CAN happen where the council, despite clear indicators, will choose not to pass the motion and they can well be the reasons you just stated. Not wanting to burn bridges, dont want to cause more shame when they can just resign etc.

What I was hoping to introduce is to remove subjectivity as much as possible and apply it squarely to all. So we're aligned there 🙂

[balmy cloak]

We just have to find the balance. Low barrier of entry if there are any but outlines what the DAO is looking for in a candidate for specialized sub-councils.

Or as you said, equal barrier to all then just let the voters decide.

If were doing no barrier, I just implore that the job description for specialized sub-councils are verbose enough to give voters an idea what the DAO needs for that positions at the same time gives "realization" to would be candidates to think twice if they are "experienced" enough.

End of the day its about who were putting the burden on. Having strict "experience" lays the burden on nominees. While having no barrier to entry lays the burden to the voters. If we do the latter we need to make sure we can lighten it through proper education, context, and information.

[sleek mason]

I know it isn't a direct comparison to a board of directors but... From our friendly ChatGPT overlord...

There are a number of qualities that can be important to look for when considering candidates for a board of directors. Some of these include:

Leadership skills: Board members should have strong leadership skills and be able to effectively guide the organization.

Business acumen: It can be helpful for board members to have a strong understanding of business and financial matters, as they may be responsible for making important financial decisions on behalf of the organization.

Industry expertise: It can be helpful for board members to have specific knowledge or expertise related to the industry in which the organization operates.

Diversity: A diverse board of directors can bring a range of perspectives and experiences to the table, which can be beneficial to the organization.

Commitment: Board members should be willing to commit their time and energy to the organization, and be prepared to attend meetings and participate in decision-making processes.

Integrity: Board members should have strong personal integrity and be committed to acting in the best interests of the organization.

Strategic thinking: Board members should be able to think strategically and help guide the long-term direction of the organization.

Communication skills: Board members should have strong communication skills and be able to effectively communicate with other board members, management, and other stakeholders.

What is the best way to get committee members with all these traits? One thing that stuck out to me in the list was diversity. I think the new system will inherently increase diversity of thought with specialized sub-committees, but could there be other ways to ensure it?

[civic hollow]

Don't think "ensure it" is needed.

[plush olive]

Voters are diverse, and so will choose diverse candidates. I mean, at least ideally. Trying to control for diversity is hard, I think we just avoid putting any barriers up that reduce diversity. Based on last epoch's election results, we had a reasonably diverse roster of nominees, and the final vILV counts for nominees was a reasonably tight spread. I think we'll be ok on diversity unless we put limitations in to explicitly reduce diversity.

[sleek mason]

I think that's what I meant how do we "ensure" that those barriers are not present. I don't see any glaring things in v2 draft but just wanted to mention it because it stuck out to me, in ChatGPT's response.

[plush olive]

Don't require public doxxing or a degree to run for a spot on council 😛

Every restriction we put in for nominees will reduce the pool of people eligible to run. Aside from that, was can ensure that nomination processes are understandable and accessible, and make sure election processes are well communicated.

[sleek mason]

One thing in the nomination process from the appendix that I would like to see is a DAO created "voter's guide". The most useful voters guides in political elections for me have always been a questionnaire that each candidate had to fill out. Some generic questions for every candidate and some community provided questions specific to each sub-council would be great IMO.

Here are some generic questions that I liked from ChatGPT(then I'll quite with spamming it's responses)

1. Why are you interested in serving on this sub-committee for Illuvium?

2. What skills and experiences do you bring to the table that would make you a valuable addition to this sub-committee?

3. How do you envision contributing to the strategic direction and long-term goals of the organization?

4. Can you discuss a time when you have effectively led a team or contributed to a decision-making process?

5. How do you approach challenges and conflicts within a team or organization?

6. How do you stay informed about industry trends and changes that may affect the organization?

7. Do you have any specific areas of expertise or knowledge that you believe would be particularly relevant to our organization?

8. Can you discuss your availability and commitment to participating in committee meetings and decision-making processes?

To me answers to these questions would illuminate someones qualifications over any CV.

[celest shadow]

Can chat gpt be a subcouncil

[balmy cloak]

This is actually one of the things I wanted to change as well. Rather than a summary. There's specific and deliberate questions posed to nominees to extract the necessary information needed for voters to vote wisely 😛

[golden swift]

I definitely agree that the nomination process is very outdated and needs a big upgrade. An obvious win is a predefined series of questions for each given sub council that is answered by nominees and it is all clear for.those voting on those given sub councils.

[golden swift]

I think the reason we are held up on qualifications as an academic certificate is moreso that I'd thats your restriction. The only provable qualification is a degree or certificate. Years of experience technically isn't really proven. Anyone can say I worked x years. LinkedIn or not 🤣🤣. But I understand that qualifications definition is broad and I do apologise for continuously pidgeon holing it

[golden swift]

Youre right that getting a job without a degree would have been difficult. But honestly that's a large part of the education system in many countries I disagree with. There are free online courses that are better than universities in many respects and things.

We do need to relate this back to the stipend. The idea of education and degrees and everything is for high paying work. Or at least that's how it has been sold for the past decade. I'd argue that if u have the qualifications to an extreme level then 1500/m is not appropriate. Leveraging skills you train for into the workforce in theory is supposed to get u that big bank. If we continue down the path of highly specialised individuals we need to reflect that. But that's another topic altogether

[balmy cloak]

I definitely understand where people were getting that idea and that shows I need to revise what I wrote to be more clear.

EDIT: pressed enter too fast.

To use your experience as an example, your time as an Illuvium Influencer should be enough qualifications for marketing. We would just drop the X no. of years but the relevant industry experience is there.

[golden swift]

Ultimately we need to isolate those guidelines. I personally don't want to restrict candidates but in the nomination process I'd make it very clear. Eg for marketing every candidate would need to say years of content creation experience. Years of industry experience and that would be super clear and presented to all voters

[balmy cloak]

Yep, it has to be clear and broad enough to encapsulate all the industries and similar experiences that includes non-conventional. Again using marketing, it should include content creation regardless of medium as long as marketing was involved. Its basically a summation of all relevant experience is what we need to outline clearly for both nominees and voters.

Im using my own experience here but I helped market Infoluvial via twitter. Yes, I can use that as basis to run for marketing but is it enough? We need to evoke these self-assessments from would-be candidates at the same time provide clear guidelines for voters to gauge if a nominee has the right "experience" for the job.

[muted cliff]

I agree that we shouldn't restrict candidates from nominating. But we need to have some process to determent whether somebody really has 5 years of marketing experience or not. I feel like pretty much everything Scruba is saying I agree with, while constantly everybody is stuck that he only thinks you have to have a degree to run for the council.

Scoriox also said: "Experience is valuable but I trust the communities judgement as a whole."
I don't agree with that. In my opinion the vote is currently a popularity contest. No way we can get a new candidate with a solid background over someone popular in the community with half the qualifications. And that is something we should change and offer the voters a choice. That's the most important thing. Giving the voters the most information possible and then the voters can decide what/who they want.

EDIT: I want to say once again I'm not talking about anyone in particulate, I'm just saying the voters don't have enough info about the nominees and because of that we don't have a lot of voters + it's a popularity contest.

Interviews, questions for every candidate, everything that helps voters decide is positive and should be encouraged.

[true lark]

Maybe I misunderstand but I would argue I’m a counterfactual to your point Binet. I don’t think I’d have won any popularity contest among the candidates last epoch. I’d have honestly finished in the bottom quarter I suspect as I’m not solely active in Illuvium. But I had the second most wallets vote for me, presumably because of my background and relevant business experience. Deraji is probably similar in this regard. He’s not the most visible guy or content creator (although he is very likable!) but he brings a fantastic analytical mind and years of relevant business experience also. I don’t think I would say either of us were winners because of a ‘popularity contest’. I know you personally were very active in researching candidates and I actually think that many of those involved in voting did the same if you speak to many of them. That said, I’ve got a summary prepared of the points I’ve seen here that I think helps to address the qualifications points that may help.

Regarding the qualifications question, I think all of the points being brought up are well thought through. To try to summarize a path forward on this topic:

• We should have an effective set of questions (targeted for each subcouncil) that candidates answer; interview follow-ups would be helpful as well but this will be difficult given a larger subset of candidates
• Some minimum level of qualifications is expected to be demonstrated (maybe ~1-2 yrs experience, education, or certification, etc.)
• The details of each council member’s claims should be verifiable by the team via LinkedIn/private doxxing (required for the NDA anyway); Failure to do so will result in the next highest vote receiver being awarded the position
• ChatGPT as a potential fifth subcouncil member to be evaluated by ChatGPT (not serious…yet)

[civic hollow]

What's the problem that's needed/wanted to be solved by having people with "qualifications"/"specialisation" on the council?

[true lark]

It’s one of the main 3 reasons we’re moving toward Gov V2. That we have had too many instances of people on council with no relevant knowledge of a topic voting on IIPs. Individuals with gaming background voting on DeFi structures or finance people voting on marketing topics. The structure is geared around specialization among the Subcouncils and that requires people with some degree of specialized knowledge to be value-added.

The other two reasons in my opinion are 1) Greater decentralization of the governance (critical for long-term sustainability based on regulatory guidance towards DAOs) and 2) Aligning incentives towards gamers and away from only investors now that games are launching

[civic hollow]

That we have had too many instances of people on council with no relevant knowledge of a topic voting on IIPs

Isn't this solved with the mere existence of sub-councils focused on specific subjects and the attribution of people interested in participating in these specific councils?

Aligning incentives towards gamers and away from only investors now that games are launching.

How will the current proposed gov v2 result in alignment towards the players rather than just the investor?

I hope you don't mind me asking these questions. It's the best way I can contribute to the discussion about gov v2.

[true lark]

It’s certainly aided by the Subcouncils. The request is to add some additional level of experience, education, knowledge that would support someone’s bid for a spot. I agree that it’s a fair request but also think it should be minimalistic at first.

The current V2 gives gamers their own Subcouncil and once the games are fully out, allows gamers (holders of Illuvials and land) the ability to vote on this council instead of ILV holders.

[civic hollow]

[...] would support someone’s bid for a spot. I agree that it’s a fair request but also think it should be minimalistic at first.

What do you mean by support?

The current V2 gives gamers their own Subcouncil and once the games are fully out, allows gamers (holders of Illuvials and land) the ability to vote on this council instead of ILV holders.

That's really cool feature. Miss that info when I did my speed reading of the draft proposal doc. I will reread before i reply anything where again. I probably missing some points.

[balmy cloak]

Perfectly summarized, Ani!

[muted cliff]

I think that what you said proves my point even more.
Maybe me saying it was a "popularity contest" was wrong. But I would argue almost all the candidates in the last election are well known by the community.
What Deraji did election before, and what you did this election was a great way of showing your value. (Excuse me if I'm wrong but) Both of you started being active in the community before the election raising good points and good solutions (You were both active before but hopefully you know what I mean). You both had couple of interviews. Doing all of that you were able to show of your value and what you can bring to the council.
I don't think that everyone can do that. And because of that I think we should do more so that more people can show of their skills, experience and qualifications. As we are now looking for way more council/subcouncil members more great people are required.

"effective set of questions (targeted for each subcouncil)" + "interviews" + showing of nominees experience, education, etc. is a great step in the right direction in my opinion in giving more people a way to introduce themselves to the community.

I would argue that we don't need a minimum level of qualifications. But it should be clear to the voters what kind of experience/qualifications the nominees have. And we let the voters vote. Maybe somebody wants to vote for a nominee with zero experience and great ideas, and maybe someone wants to vote for a nominee with a lot of experience.

EDIT: Saying it was a "popularity contest" was wrong. But what I should have said is that if you aren't active in the community it's a lot harder to get your message across together with your experience and qualifications. And that's the part I think should be changed while we are looking for the best people representing the DAO in the council/subcouncil.

[hushed pulsar]

Qualifications come down to two sides – what barriers are put in place by the DAO to eliminate “unqualified” candidates, and what are the defined expectations of the role? The debate here truly is defining the job posting for each of these sub-councils, and the discussion has been deliberating what is a minimum requirement versus spelling out detailed responsibilities and preferred qualifications.
As the community will ultimately decide, the real question facing us is how much to dictate barriers to candidacy, while clearly defining the role and expectations so both the candidate and community has clarity on how to best evaluate who to vote for. The only true role of the DAO at this stage is creating such barriers, while continuing to advance ways for candidates to publicly demonstrate their qualifications.
Based on what I’m broadly seeing in this chat, there isn’t too much appetite to raise the barrier too high, but rather more clearly define expectations and responsibilities, and develop a greater mechanism of evaluating the performance of council members. I’m just starting to think about what a mid-term stakeholder evaluation may look like, and mechanisms of getting anonymous feedback (from peer council members, moderators, CC's, community), and if that may be helpful, both to individual candidates while also aiding clarity in responsibilities.
Also, it’s pretty clear the next council candidate interviews will be co-hosted by @TSG and ChatGPT.

[golden swift]

I'd like to argue that crypto is a brand new beast. Personally I'd rather someone like yourself that has spent 1 year amongst gamefi and their many defi ecosystems and involved there than someone with 30 years industry experience in a bank. Experience is looking like it mostly include Web 2 experience. Eg content creation for a vlog and content creation for crypto news have 2 VERY different skillsets.

[golden swift]

There's a balance. I side with blickter here where putting in the effort to campaign in the broader community shows dedication and understanding of Illuvium as a whole. I personally (as a community member) wouldn't vote for someone who didn't do heavy participation before the vote. I wouldn't care if they were Warren Buffett.

If someone else was doing all they could to campaign themselves and their skills and show how much they cared about Illuvium. They get my vote. But 2 candidates that both put in similar effort and one had 10+ more years experience. I feel the community would side with them every time.

Extending on that charisma is certainly an interesting part. And idk if you can ever really eliminate that. If you're more likeable then you'll get voted in. But you'll find those that are likeable have very good people skills. When you're voting on the behalf of people I still value that skillset.

[subtle orbit]

with the voting process.. will the community be able to vote for a nominee for each subcouncil in one go? or will it be spread out amongst different elections?

[subtle orbit]

when it does comes to the questions for a candidate.. they should revolve around what the job will entail so the community would be able to distinguish if the nominee is capable to facilitate the role. This will be able to give the nominee a chance to express themselves to the community why their current skills will have an impact towards the movement of the game whilst being on the council.
Personally i dont believe a social media youtube influencer should be on the council as it could create a conflict of interest, running risk to themselves and the Dao.. but hey, maybe it could be the perfect role for a community member being able to interview other council members during the epoch, assisting the communication for the dao towards the community & vice versa

[hushed pulsar]

This is the critical aspect of a dao or any public electorate. The dao can define responsibilities. We can define expected qualifications. We can create content and opportunity to establish an informed electorate. But in the end, the people vote, and it's up to them to do their research.
The only real impact is determining who isn't allowed to be on the ballot. After that, it's up to the wallets staking ILV and the extent to which they choose to be informed before voting.

[muted cliff]

You keep on saying "Personally I'd rather..." and "I personally wouldn't vote...." while my suggestions are completely different. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what voters think, that's why we have voting. And my only suggestion is that we give the voters as much info as possible and let them decide who they want to vote for.

[muted cliff]

While I agree with almost everything you said now and before, I don't agree that we shouldn't allow anyone to enter the ballot. For one it's really hard to set the fine line that will determent who is allowed to vote and who isn't. And also I don't think we need that. We can define expectations and let the voters decide who they want.

Also, I don't really agree that it's "up to (people voting) to do their research". I think we can do better in presenting that to the voters.

[golden swift]

Couldn't agree more. That's exactly what I am saying. If disqualify nominees based on any metric. Then the voter cannot make their own decision. They are being force fed candidates

But giving them as much information as possible to help.inform their decision whether they use it or not is valuable

Oh u already said what I said. Yeah we are on the same page

[violet solar]

There have been two candidates (that eventually were elected) that at first it wasn’t clear to me how they would be able to bring something valuable to the DAO as a councilor. @celest shadow and @dreamy atlas had not been active on discord and I had not witnessed what they had to offer. I didn’t use telegram so I never saw what DK was doing on there that proved his understanding of fledgeling crypto communities. I didn’t use twitter and did not follow the right people to see what Santiago had been doing for the entire space for years. All it took was someone (keiran) pointing me in the right direction to look and see what they’d done. If a candidate has not been able to take the time prior to an election to show that they can provide insight or experience to benefit the DAO then there is risk in assuming they will be able to take the time to provide insight and experience after being elected. While not everyone will or even should do that on discord it’s not prohibitively difficult for candidates to provide evidence of their skills and experience.

[craggy gull]

Who’s Keiran?

[civic hollow]

Probably the alter ego of Kieran.

[safe quarry]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/909493405623681086/1002191762082758737/51B3E738-24E0-4B5C-B909-BBA7E94D0ABB.gif

[hushed pulsar]

I largely agree, and was just highlighting the experience/education discussion is somewhat subjective. The only recourse is to stop someone from being on the ballot with requirements that are objectively verifiable.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any requirements, but anything that is required to be on the ballot must have a clear means of validating.
Must candidates have staked ILV?
Must candidates for gaming council own an Illuvium gaming nft?
It doesn't seem unreasonable to require a candidate to meet the same standard that must be met to vote. These also need to be included in the proposal.
Are there other true requirements to qualify as a candidate, and if so, what is the validation mechanism?

[hushed pulsar]

I would also say Illuvium already does just as much as most real politics to create an informed electorate. Potentially we can improve questions for candidates and more broadly publicize the debates/videos/candidate statements, but ultimately a lot of people vote with less candidate information in genuine politics than they do in voting for illuvium council. Or maybe that's just my American bias of elections where reality TV stars, professional athletes and actors reach the highest echelons of politics.

[violet solar]

What does the DAO value more? decentralized democratic process or quality of councilors

Of course it is not either or. But there are other methods for filling council seats. Appointments. Search committees. Electoral colleges . There must be others with varying degrees of decentralization. But election is where the DAO is at currently.

•A few simple requirements up front.
•A clear description of responsibilities.
•Efficient routes for the DAO to find recourse (checks and balances).

[hushed pulsar]

I think search committees are a very interesting idea longer term. Recruitment of diverse talent to bring different perspectives. Hopefully over time as the DAO (and more significantly, the games) establish a reputation, strong talent will organically be attracted. For now, I'll say my personal bias is for those with a passion in the GameFi space and interest in developing governance foundations. Decentralization remains the key to it all, though.

[muted cliff]

By requirements I meant that you mean some education background is needed to be able to qualify. With that I didn’t agree. But I do agree that there should be some requirements like holding ILV for example, and some others.

[true lark]

Here is a cautionary story of what happens when the 'financial' side of an organization runs a business too much. For those wondering about the mid-term argument to shift to Illuvials and land owners to vote on the Gameplay sub-council, this is why. You need individuals who are approaching the project from a gaming perspective making the decisions, not a financial perspective. This increases the likelihood you'll get more of that than if ILV holders are voting on that subcouncil.

[hushed pulsar]

This is also an example of having diverse perspectives in a discussion. Only having a single perspective, regardless of which perspective it is, elements of the conversation will be missed. The hope with the gov v2 structure is that game, strategy, marketing, and community come with different backgrounds and perspectives that ensure a well-rounded conversations, while enabling specialistic to be the strongest voice in single-topic areas. The Southwest example is also a situation of similarity bias, where the previous outgoing CEO surrounded himself with like thinkers and also groomed his successor to think similarly to himself. To help build this, we need to continue promoting engagement from a diverse factions of the community.

[civic hollow]

Golden mean theory.

[frail blaze]

In my opinion I think we should get the team members for each sub-council in place, or at least the team nominees in place, before the community members' interviews. Let the team members get in contact with whoever is doing the interviews and have the them come up with the series of questions that need to be asked. Asking the same general questions to each nominee I don't think will be as beneficial as having team fielded questions specific to each sub-council. I appreciate the hell out of everything TSG has done for the nominee interviews, but once you watch one of those interviews it starts becoming harder and harder to watch more of them. With positions being added for gov v2 it probably means there will be even more nominees next round.

[gray blaze]

On the council nominees qualification topic I understand both sides and where Scrub comes from, this is a very old democratic discussion on getting the most qualified elected officials versus inclusion. My personal opinion on this would be that as long as council members are assigned by a democratically elected process the only requirements should be to be able participate in governance (hold staked ILV) and be willing to sign an NDA.

If we want to ensure that the most “qualified” people make it to the subcouncil, then the whole system should change and make it more like how the executive branch of government works, main council gets elected and they are responsible to look for and appoint the most qualified people they think should be on the sub-councils (like how presidents appoints ministers, the head of the central bank, etc)

I’m no expert in political science and don’t have the answer to create the perfect democracy but I know politics and still believe that currently this is the best way known so far. As a footnote I’ll leave the requirements to be the President of the United States of America.
A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older

[sleek mason]

Maybe a more apt requirements comparison for US gov to ILV Council is House of Representatives:
To be elected, a representative must be at least 25 years old, a United States citizen for at least seven years and an inhabitant of the state he or she represents.

Both have a time requirement. I wonder if a length of time staked would be something to explore as a requirement to run?

[hushed pulsar]

The time requirement is interesting, though I view it more as time actively engaged with the community being more the expectation over length of time staked. At the same time, visibility and length of engagement is more a core reason why someone is likely to be elected in the first place. It's also difficult to quantify quality engagement, so I'm not sure it's a requirement but really an reason someone is considered worthy of election by the community.

[gray blaze]

The length of engagement is an interesting factor to look at (I wouldn't exclude candidates because of it) because regardless of the ''quality'' of their interactions (that is for voters to decide) it shows that they at least know their constituents well enough, but for that you would need a tool that shows the amounts of hours spent in this discord 🤔.....well this might be getting a bit of topic hahahaha 😅

[trim oasis]

@gray blaze wht is governance V2

[gray blaze]

It's a proposal to restructure (evolve) Illuvium's DAO governing body, you can read the draft here (or check pinned messages)
#1056018831941840906 message

[trim oasis]

ok thanks a lot mate just saw it in today stream and its a update so i asked

[muted cliff]

I don't know if this was mentioned before but:

"If a proposal reaches 30 approval votes from the community over a 14 day period then it progresses to the Community Council stage which is facilitated by the Community Manager."

Not sure we should have a fixed number here. Are we going to have to write an IIP every time the community gets bigger and we need more votes?

---

Also, where are we currently with the gov v2? Is anyone changing anything? Is there anything we should still be discussing? Are we still waiting for people to come back from the holidays?

[plush olive]

It would be an ICCP, and yes, this number would need revision over time. It's possible a better measure could be used, do you have any ideas on that front?

We're meeting on Tuesday (Jan 10th) to discuss Gov V2 V0.2, which incorporates community changes and introduces some additional processes we feel are important. We're working to make sure version control is readable (i.e. that people don't have to read the entire 20 page doc again to view the changes) and also to ensure that changes made are appropriate in the overall structure.

I personally would love more of the community and/or team to weigh in on the proposal, but I also understand that it's an intimidating document to read through.

We're also holding a dedicated Gov V2 Town Hall to answer any Gov V2 specific questions, that will be on Jan 12th. Ultimately, we want to ensure this structure is something the community is on board with, and that the community understands it. As soon as we feel that is the case, and no major improvements or changes need to be made, this will go to a vote.

[sleek mason]

https://discord.com/events/760344898200666112/1061019808906346586

it says it in the description 😛

[muted cliff]

I don't think we really need a number of that sorts. If we have a sub-council that will be in charge of deciding what proposal goes through, why do we need a specific number?

But I'll write more in the future about the structure I think would be good to look into and maybe get back on that as well.

[plush olive]

Subjective measures can be tricky, I think it could work in theory to just say "The Community Council just decides to sent things to a vote", but I don't think I'd be ok with that as a community member. My core assumption here is that the community can put literally any proposal they want to a vote, regardless of what the council thinks of it. If a proposal the community heavily supported eliminated the Community Council, that proposal needs to be able to move through governance.

A better way might be to say, "The minimum threshold of upvotes for a proposal to move to a vote is 40% of the most supported proposal's upvotes", which would currently be about 31.2 upvotes. In this way, the threshold continually increases as participation in governance increases.

[sleek mason]

I like either/or 30upvotes for a community IIP or any council member can propose an IIP (but it must sit in IIP forum for 14 days before vote)

[plush olive]

A good part of council-initiated proposals requiring community sentiment voting is that it effectively mandates the council communicating the point of their proposal. I think it's a good structure to require community sentiment for all proposals, regardless of source.

[muted cliff]

Maybe it can be a percentage of people voting in the election.

But "it must sit for 14 days" doesn't sound right to me. What if it's something important and we want to act quick?

[sleek mason]

Yeah I guess council members getting to get an IIP up for a vote without community sentiment is unneeded. The past has shown most council/team member IIPs get a lot of traction with the community (good or bad) very quickly.

[plush olive]

Agreed, time requirements are important to avoid in this regard, sometimes proposals ARE time sensitive.

I'd say 24h would be a good minimum time for a proposal to require community review.

I desperately want to share some of the things in V0.2 that I believe resolve some of these concerns, but I'm going to avoid doing so until the other council members sign off. Ideally we can share more on Thursday (or after the meeting on Tuesday).

[golden swift]

What do you think of something like flash interviews? Each interview is 2-5 minutes and the existing council can edit them all together to create a 1-2 hour video covering all nominees effectively.

This is all really good conversation. I feel it's worth having both systems in place. I'd say a system where council members can place a proposal in ideas for a minimum 72 hours before they are allowed to take it further to allow community review. With a caveat of allowing it to be done faster if necessary.

Also I think the minimum community votes for proposals is good because it somewhat forces the council to act on things that the community is strongly advocating for with a clear metric. Both governance methods can coexist

[frail blaze]

Sounds like a good plan to get everyone out there at once. Could also split the videos up per sub-council nominees to make them a little bit more specific. I think having a town hall for each sub-council would be a good idea too.

[sour shuttle]

Great conversations to read through. Is there a flow chart or org chart for the proposed v2 structure? Is it possible to make a simple explainer diagram of how a sub committee would evaluate and vote on a iip. For example could we use Fraggys spider iip as a test case to run through a mock assessment to simplify the conversion for those in the community who are interested but perhaps not as down in the weeds of details? This might help to highlight some of the strengths and or weaknesses in the process.

[violet solar]

I’ll have to take a look at the new section on rapid action I guess.

Giving the eDAO some predefined authority to act through an IIP could be an option as well. I’m certainly not sure regarding regulation though.

[celest shadow]

I would think of the edao as eventually not existing hopefully

and this method replaces it

[violet solar]

Yup

[plush olive]

Note: The updated Gov V2 has been moved to #1024051771624136774 under #1063212194394812507 - Future updates will be posted there as well!

[violet solar]

https://tenor.com/view/kid-run-hallway-oops-walking-back-gif-12263463

[dark violet]

Is there a reason why - at least I - don't have perms in that thread?

[violet solar]

Yes. It’s gated for ILV holders and stakers. #🎫〕verify-asset

[dark violet]

Got it - rip me and my opsec habits I guess

[violet solar]

Verified DAO members only

[violet solar]

You could hold as little as 1 ILV in a linked wallet.

[dark violet]

All staked, but I'll just buy another

All done - basically a $50 membership pass