#Governance v2.5

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

thick fern
#

Even though it seems premature to moving onto another iteration so soon after the last, there are obviously - as mentioned by Kieran in the Town Hall - teething problems with the current version. Early sketch, but I think it's good to get the conversation started.

Problem:

  • Confusion over power dynamics, roles and responsibilities between Councils and Contributors

Proposed Solution:

Make the following clear:

  1. Governance can say "no", but cannot say "yes"
  2. Specialist Councils are community suggestion filters
  3. Main Council has veto authority over major changes

Essentially flow is as follows: community suggestion chaos -> idea gets traction -> Specialist Council vote -> Contributors decide if they want to pursue
-> if minor action pursued, resources committed to doing action
-> if major action pursued, Main Council can vote to veto -> resources committed

Advantages:

  • Allows great community ideas to surface
  • Leverages talented specialists within the community to filter popular but shortsighted ideas
  • Gives Contributors complete decision-making authority over their realm of expertise, i.e. avoids the 'a camel is a horse made by committee' problem and gets out of the team's way
  • Gives the DAO/players final say before major changes are made
  • Isn't a complete reshuffling of governance in the way 1->2 was

Questions unanswered:

  • What constitutes a "major" action? My personal preference is for this to be relatively limited so as to not bog the team down, but the threshold should be clearly defined

  • In this structure, do current Specialist Councils (e.g. Strategy, Game, Marketing etc) make sense? If the role is simply to filter community suggestions, should these be determined by the quantity of community inputs in each subject area?

  • Likely many others that this early sketch is missing - interested in any and all feedback

stiff tendon
#

Thanks for sharing this post!

@eager acorn and other Council Members are currently working on revisions to Gov V2

feral forge
#

I don’t like it. Either we should try to make governance simple and meaningful, or just get rid of it all together.
There shouldn’t be any tax reasons to have governance now that the HQ is moved to Dubai

eager acorn
#

So there is an attempt to streamline this and kieran touched upon this in the townhall

on a very high level proposals would be general direction and team is able to execute in a way that they deemed fit.

One thing that's missing here is what if the team misses the mark and has already executed it? There must be a process where before the work is started the solution of the team needs to have some stamp of approval to ensure its aligned.

eager acorn
outer spruce
thick fern
# eager acorn So there is an attempt to streamline this and kieran touched upon this in the to...

You mean a situation where a major action has taken place without community buy-in?

Ideally the solution is to avoid those situations in the first place via maximum simplicity + clarity

If both sides understand the rules, this can only take place in one/both of two situations:

  1. Urgent situation, no time

  2. Labs doesn’t agree and brute forces anyway

  3. is solvable via mechanisms, whereas 2) is simply the result of the DAO not really having any hard power