[PASSED] Governance V2 v0.3

[drifting adder]

Gov V2 V0.3 includes some important changes.

The main body of the document has been shortened, improving readability. The appendix has been left unchanged, to ensure it still includes important information.

The Team Admin will be elected by the IMC, and the team is free to decide internally which individuals will serve on each sub-council. This ensures that team representatives have the time, relevant knowledge, and willingness to serve on a sub-council.

The Risk Management Committee has been added. This committee's purpose is to provide an impartial viewpoint on risk, separate from other interests the IMC may be considering. This is particularly important when viewed through the lens of uncertain regulation in the larger crypto industry. This committee may require revision, as it is a recent addition.

Recommended Experience has been added to sub-councils. This is not exhaustive, but is intended to indicate what types of experience could be useful. This can help inform candidates and voters on what qualities to look for in a representative.

Upon discussing this with the team, we've changed the format of the transitional period. To not impose a strict deadline on development for Gov V2, the transitional period will be initiated by ICCP once technical development is closer to being completed. It's extremely important that development associated with Gov V2 does not detract from other ongoing product development.

There are other, minor changes for consistency. Changes from V0.2 have been documented in blue text.

We look forward to your feedback on this iteration of Gov V2. We hope to be able to move Gov V2 to a vote in the near future, pending community support and feedback.

Full IIP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d126iyv-c_NGwWsrb2Bb4Sbkkjxu3q31LRyqhN09rnI/edit?usp=sharing

<@&814435151307866142>

[potent spruce]

I know Illuvium beyond is close everyone but we would really love it if you all take a look. Even if it's purely the things in blue

[last sigil]

Great job with the updates guys. I think adding a Risk Management Committee is smart given the current climate. The proposal looks good to me.

[stable mauve]

Ahead of the curve always

[dusty shadow]

Will look at it.

[thorny bolt]

2 minor things.

From Role of Governance Community Manager section about the council meeting notes.

This report shall contain (i) a description of when and how the meeting was conducted; (ii) a roster of attendees (including indication of those absent from the meeting); (iii) an agenda of items discussed at the meeting; (iv) a brief description of each Council member's position on each agenda item; and (v) a summary of the disposition of each agenda item (e.g., approved, disapproved, tabled for a later date).

The current council notes are not this detailed. I see some benefit to knowing individual council members ideas about agenda items.. But I also understand the argument of the council presenting in one voice.

If the plan is to keep the notes as they currently are formatted this section could take another edit.

Another question is how do we envision "1 IMC member as a liaison to the RMC" is selected.

Over all it does seem less complex and more readable. Nice job, looks great 🙂

[spark apex]

Good eye, I had missed (iv) - I don't see a ton of value in providing positions on topics that are raised in meetings. Pretty frequently, new information is brought forward in a meeting, and this epoch we've made a point of trying not to make decisions on new information in the same meeting. Taking time to consider all elements before a decision is made seems worthwhile and effective.

Ultimately, I believe the correct place to provide individual opinions is during voting, or in discussions around a topic or proposal.

TL;DR: We should remove section (iv), in my opinion. I know it wouldn't make sense for many of the meetings and topics we've covered this epoch.

The IMC liason would basically be attending to reduce workload on the RMC (attending the meeting, but not providing any of the risk analysis themselves). Selection could be defined (rotating), or could be determined by the IMC by a manner of their choosing. In a perfect world, I'd prefer the latter, as it provides flexibility, but there's an argument to be made for having a concrete structure as well. Timezones do make attending meetings awkward sometimes, so I'd prefer to leave it to the IMC to decide on the liason each month.

[ember lance]

Great work Rich!

[drifting adder]

I didn’t do anything 😂

Give your council members credit

@spark apex in particular killed it, and it probably almost killed him

[ember lance]

Thanks for all the hard work Blickter!

[spark apex]

It really was a team effort, I just organized haha - It was Kieran's idea to shorten the main body, and it was a great idea. Scoriox updated the graphic, and everyone gave thoughts and suggestions on different elements being added.

[ember lance]

As this studio finds success after game launch governance is going to be really important and I hope we can keep the council as homegrown as possible

[dry ravine]

Solid work everyone! Illuvium will lead the way on how DAOs operate in web3 gaming.

I had one suggestion. I think it would be beneficial to have a flow chart/graphic for the election process with timelines. Something visual like how the IMC is composed.

This will be beneficial in the future for explaining it to everyone who doesn't read the full IIP and can be posted easily throughout media channels.

Once again great work.

[inner mantle]

I like this a lot, I still think we will have a lot of crossover and potential bleed through accross the sub councils, so this is great. Aside from having a CC attend in proxy, if the IMC meeting is due but either conflicts occur or someone is unable to attend, someone from the sub council should attend as proxy to give that sub councils viewpoint on the meeting subject. This can be detailed and shared with the ICM member who was absent .

Overall it looks great, looking forward to it's implimentation and thanks for the great work from everyone thats put time and energy into this.

[thorny bolt]

How does this look?

Perhaps a discrepancy between these two sections,

[dry ravine]

Ya something like this, but add a block about how the sub-councils will then chose among themselves who will be the representative in the main council.

[jolly star]

I like the update, It’s clear and easy to understand. Nice work everyone!

[upper basin]

Introduction of RMC is a great addition.

• Suggestion IMC member assigned should not be the team admin but a community-elected council member
• Will IMC member be compensated for this?

Great to see recommended experienced added.

• Good compromise to give guide to both candidate and community to look for which traits or experience fits in what sub-council

Community Experience:

• Should add experience in general policy making or drafting considering its the sub-council that will be instrumental in revising and vetting the initial IIP

Strategy Sub-Council:

• Recommended experience seems to focus mostly on economics, defi/crypto, monetisation but the duties and responsibilities also involve governance matters. It would be good to include experience in general governance whether public or private

Proposal Process

• Approvals (likes) of any amount for any period of time is a bad metric. Disregarding this, wont it also be a good idea to allow the community sub-council members to “sponsor” the idea//IIP and let it progress to the next stage (route to next sub-council) if they feel that its worth backing? Condition could be at least 2 community sub-council backs the idea/iip

[spark apex]

RE: Proposal Process - Emoji reactions are a bit silly, and there's almost certainly a better long term solution. However, temp checking the community's sentiment is a VERY important part of the process, allowing a sub-council to bypass that sentiment check could pretty easily result in sub-councils pushing unoptimized proposals to the next level. A recent topical example would be the first draft of Illuvitars. My thoughts are that requiring upvotes on proposals is equivalent to mandating communication with the community. I think the value that brings is worth a bit of silliness, at least until we have more robust tools for sentiment checking.

With regards to the other points - RMC is currently meeting once a month, the IMC sending a single representative once a month is 6 meetings/epoch, or 1.167 meetings per epoch for each IMC rep. I don't believe that's worthy of extra compensation, personally. If this duty were not rotating, I'd agree that it should not be just the team admin, but I do feel like it should rotate, and if the timing for an RMC meeting is ideal for the team admin to attend one of the meetings, I wouldn't have a major issue with that.

I'm mostly agreed on the points around experience - I do think we should highlight the types of experience that could be relevant, and these would be good additions.

[thorny bolt]

I can see a rotation being a better system over appointed, elected, or volunteered. Knowledge would be gained by every IMC members having a chance to sit in on a RMC meeting. Could this be made explicit in the IIP?

[spark apex]

It could, there's an element of practicality to consider as well though. If, for example, the RMC meets at 3:30 AM for a given council member, and it's at 5:00 PM for another council member, mandating a rotation could cause problems. I think this might be a circumstance where we don't get much out of being too explicit about how people attend the meeting.

The things we mandate HAVE to be followed, and if they don't, we need to write in an exception as well. It could be considered best practices to rotate, and we can leave it at that.

[thorny bolt]

might be over kill but I see the role could use some clarification.
my proposed addition, with help from chatGPT:

Under (5) Definition of Special Roles

Role of IMC member as a liaison to the RMC

The liaison between the Illuminati Main Council (IMC) and the Risk Management Committee (RMC) is needed to promote communication, and effective risk management practices between the two groups. The liaison will not be a voting member of the RMC and the role will rotate amongst IMC council members.

~~The liaison between the Illuminati Main Council (IMC) and the Risk Management Committee (RMC) plays a critical role in promoting collaboration, communication, and effective risk management practices between the IMC and RMC. While they are not a voting member of the RMC, they play an important role in ensuring that both groups are working together effectively to manage potential risks. The role of the liaison will rotate among IMC council members.

The liaison has several key roles, including:

• Facilitating communication: The liaison acts as a bridge between the IMC and RMC, ensuring that both groups are informed about each other's activities, concerns, and priorities related to risk management.
• Coordinating efforts: The liaison helps to coordinate risk management efforts between the IMC and RMC, ensuring that both groups are working together effectively to identify and manage potential risks.
• Providing feedback: The liaison gathers feedback from the RMC and brings it back to the IMC, helping to inform decision-making and policy development related to risk management.~~

Could we keep it vague and leave it up to the IMC to interpret how the rotation happens?

[spark apex]

I do think it's overkill, but I will let others weigh in. To me, all the IMC rep is doing is meeting with the RMC to listen and bring information back to the IMC. That can include asking clarifying questions about different elements of risk.

It's also worth noting that (as with current council), meetings are important, but the bulk of communication can be handled asynchronously. That doesn't make the liason the only contact point for the IMC and RMC, it's just one of the tools in the kit.

Meetings are a great time to discuss contentious issues or nuanced issues where a point may get lost in text, but with members on both the IMC and RMC across the globe, communicating via text is by FAR the most efficient and preferred method to communicate information.

[thorny bolt]

I edited the above to hit on the main points and get rid of the fluff. Since we have a definitions of special roles section I thought it could be used. But I don't feel that strongly about it, I'm fine with rotation not being clarified in the doc and just being best practice.

[steep thorn]

Excellent job <@&814435151307866142> ! Looks really promising

[upper basin]

I agree. Temp check is good to have. Its one avenue. Till we have a better metric were stuck with emojis. Not a big issue.

Thesis here is that we shouldnt limit it to just that. If an idea is a good enough or even important enough to be fast-tracked why cant we give that ability to our community sub-council (or any council for that matter). The fast track was not to go up to vote by the IMC but for the community sub-council to actually start working on a draft/revise or be prudent enough to endorse it right away to the specialized sub-council.

We voted these people in for their expertise, wisdom, judgment, and discernment. We should trust that they be able to wield this ability properly and if they dont well then its a signal not to vote them back in or even initiate a vote-of-no-confidence.

I just find that having to wait for "sentiment" all the time is too reactive on the part of the community sub-council.

[steep thorn]

I agree with this. also I feel like sentiment checks tend to just be 3 weeks of unnecessary back and forth between both parties not really listening to each other trying to force in their point of view....

[spark apex]

There's some irony to posting a comment like this in this thread. Gov V2 is in the 3rd iteration, all of which have incorporated community feedback. The Illuvitars IIP got reworked based on community feedback. Sentiment checks are a critical part of ensuring the council is aligned with the community.

I'll acknowledge that sometimes people get bogged down in back and forth and trying to be "right" in governance threads, but that's not the core role it serves. It's a way of leveraging the knowledge and expertise of the DAO to ensure we're doing the best we can. It only takes 1 person to bring a better solution forward or identify a critical issue with a proposal.

[drifting adder]

[VOTING] Governance V2 v0.3

Vote for Gov. V2 is Officially Posted https://snapshot.org/#/ilvgov.eth/proposal/0xa38a535b1d39fd50c004ea76dff7152b3e9bd77825ab8266a7f800ecdcca7030

<@&814435151307866142>

[uncut arch]

Great job and thanks to everyone involved in making Gov v2 happen! Excited for tonight's town hall to hear community sentiment on the document and any other concerns the DAO has.

[cyan slate]

Awesome that we've come this far.....it is an ever-growing interesting to watch journey. Council has my full support for the approval of this IIP 💯

[cinder lichen]

Such exciting news! Huge congrats to <@&814435151307866142> the team, mods and community for getting this through. LFG!