We’ve had discussions around this regarding the ApeComms team as their AIP establishes a working group as well.
The general idea is that WGv0 needs this to be able to delegate responsibilities as the mandate expires after 3 months in order to fulfill the mandate – having competing WG proposals during this time will make things unnecessarily complex. Technically this will mean that any existing AIPs with WG proposals will have to be put on hold during the process.
The reality is that we’ll need to move pretty quickly to establish working groups and it only makes sense to incorporate some or all of the unofficial groups into the new structures WGv0 recommends.
Ultimately WGv0 will be in charge of this process, so we expect this group of key stakeholders to make the best decisions when it comes to structure moving forward.
Thanks for the reply. I think here administrator means admins from Cartan, correct? There’s a transition period for them so admins and stewards could coexist for some time.
I don’t think full on-chain governance is a feasible idea. On-chain usually means low efficiency. It’s also hard to replay functions such as forum admin to on-chain routines. Managers for daily execution would still be needed off-chain.
That’s the GOAL need to be set, even though full on-chain decentralized governance is hard to achieve.
Hey Chris, you are welcome to join this project working group. We are going to form a working group for this pilot project development. We are working on the AIP draft and let us know if we should add your name in this project as one of the Authors. You can DM me via email or twitter. Ken
Yeah, we were kinda afraid of being “put on hold”, esp after developing our Working Group structure along with Prop House:
Perhaps a couple of pathways to explore for a little less centralization could be as follows:
WGv0 only exists to gradually take over responsibilities currently held by The Cartan Group - no responsibility-creep
WGv0 can suggest a best-practice template for Working Group’s but not mandate one
WGv0 does not control 100% of Ecosystem Treasury Funds - perhaps 50% should still be allocated for Working Groups that form and wish to grow organically within the DAO
Would be great to get your group’s thoughts on this and of course to hear from the community too.
Also, what do you imagine happens to the AIP process come January 1, 2023 should this AIP pass or fail?
These points are very clear to me given how the AIP is written.
WGv0 has a stated mandate to do 3 things.
Put together a framework including guidelines and recommendations for how “Official ApeCoin DAO Working Groups” should look and be formed.
Facilitate the RFP process to potentially find another Caymans administrator.
Delegate responsibilities into “Official ApeCoin DAO Working Groups” within 3 months and dissolve.
WGv0 DOES NOT:
Have an infinite budget, or access to the Ecosystem Fund.
Have the ability to collect and control resources given from Cartan for their own personal use. WGv0 reallocates knowledge and resources from Cartan INTO future working groups, it does not act as any governance body or “AIP Working Group” in any capacity.
Have the ability to decide what does or doesn’t go to a Snapshote vote. This process is clearly defined in AIP-1, and WGv0 does not have the ability to break our current governance structure under the illusion of “emergency powers” of any kind.
Appreciate you sharing your interpretation and who knows, perhaps the community may also get a better sense of WGv0 now.
However, I still have difficulty in squaring your interpretation with badteeth’s response:
Does this not state that WGv0 is controlling certain aspects of the process, even if temporarily, by putting WG AIPs on hold?
And while I don’t expect WGv0 to have ownership of Treasury Funds, surely the process of WGv0 through the roles of Stewards exists to pick winners and losers and therefore gates the access to Ecosystem Funds:
This basically counters what you interpret here:
I’m sure there is so much nuance to the idea in general and that we cannot be expected to have solutions to every possibility, but I am a little concerned that there is confusion around whether or not WGv0 can unilaterally hold-back AIPs with Working Groups or not – you and badteeth say no and yes, respectively.
You’re right, there seems to be some confusion around the AIP but I’m going off of what’s written into it, not any subjective interpretation around how I “think” things “should” be.
While I agree that it makes wgv0’s job incredibly more difficult and frustrating to have other working group AIPs going up for a vote, there is nothing stated in this AIP that affords them the executive power to unilaterally decide what does or doesn’t go to a vote or when. It only states that “Official ApeCoin DAO Working Groups” must be reviewed by wgv0 before going up for a vote. For example, I don’t think we can argue that Boring Security is an “Official ApeCoin DAO Working Group” because it doesn’t take custody of any ApeCoin DAO assets like Twitter, Discourse, Discord, or Coinbase. As such, Boring Security AIP’s would not be under the purview of this document, and would not be subject to wgv0’s review.
Ideally, if a working group AIP goes up to a vote while there is a community understanding that wgv0 is attempting to create Official ApeCoin DAO working groups, people will recognize this issue and vote down the working group with the understanding that they should adjust or accommodate the structure set forth by wgv0. Again, ideally.
I believe this should say: “This will mean that any existing AIPs with WG proposals should be put on hold during the process.”
I think it is important to make it clear to the community that the main goal here was not to try to solve every issue with this AIP. but to buy some time so the community could get a true understanding of the inner workings of the administration and work on an orderly transition over the course of 3-months. During that buffer period, all of these ideas could be articulated and worked into new AIPs that the community could discuss and get behind.
Agreed and support the general idea of needing some breathing room for transition, yet I also wish to understand what happens to Working Group AIPs currently in the works and during the 1-3 months of this interim process.
My initial questions and concerns here were answered with two, seemingly, opposite views.
If the current process for AIPs is not gonna change as suggested, then surely Working Group AIPs should also be “allowed” to propose their Ideas/Drafts without needing an additional review from an additional group, right?
Just trying to understand what we’ll be voting on that affects so many of us who have been working on these Working Groups for some time.
Working Group AIPs should also be “allowed” to propose their Ideas/Drafts without needing an additional review from an additional group, right?
This is my number one issue and has been since I started posting here — gotta make sure that working groups, including Apecomms and ApeIRL Events, don’t become kingmakers that add centralized bureaucracy instead of structure.
This is difficult, but it can be done. The WGv0 is an important time in the history of the DAO.
Agreed that we don’t need kingmakers – I cannot imagine anyone on the ApeComms team was even motivated by this (I could be wrong I guess)
I know for a fact that the members working on ApeCoinIRL are driven by the idea of creating a network of Local Champions wishing to proliferate ApeCoin DAO in their own local areas/regions
The initial ideation may seem centralized, but with 10 local ApeCoin holders in 10 different cities/states/countries, the goal is to start with a Proof of Concept and exponentially grow from there (basically, we have to start somewhere)
No kingmakers in this group – just folks that want to help design a working model with the hopes that anyone, from any area, can jump onboard and be a local champion to get developers, project founders and local folks to web3, preferably through $APE Coin DAO
Side note: I have a member in South Africa that may come on board for the initial launch, if you have anyone in Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, or any other parts of the African continent, please reach out and make an intro. It’s all still a work in progress.
Nigeria definitely. We’re sponsoring tournaments with two of the biggest gaming guilds in Nigeria. What are next steps?
The idea of Local Champions is aligned with my post about Ambassadors, which I stopped work on to clear the way for Apecomms. But the idea is similar I’m sure. It could work for any demarcated culture, whether marked by geography or social mores.
Thanks for the continued discussion. Took the comments to heart and we’ve come up with a better way to organically account for the work many have done in the DAO to this point within WG0 while still respecting the autonomy of WG0 through focus groups centered around domain expertise or interest. Hopefully you agree this is positive progress – would love your feedback.
Some very important changes related to Cartan compensation and extension time as well.
Progress continues to be made!
Here’s the changelog:
20221223 Update:
Summary
Title changed
Reduced APE Foundation administration expenses by $225,000 during the 3-month term
Cost savings recalculated to reflect 50% cut in monthly pay to current DAO administrator along with reducing term by one month from 3 to 2 months for a minimum total savings of 60% over prior proposal
Authors: Alucard0x changed to Mantis, jmart changed to j-mart
New title credit added for Coach McGuirk
Removed AIP-1 extension after discussion with Special Council who confirmed AIP-1 processes remain in effect until changed by future AIP
Changed current Ape Foundation administrator extension term to 2 months instead of three
Changed Working Group v0 to Working Group Zero or WG0 to reflect typical usage
Changed “create” to “propose” where necessary when it comes to WG0 recommendations as WG0 has no power to create any official changes without sending to AIP for vote
Added definition and structure to priority focus groups – Operations, Governance, Communications
Reduced WG0 first month budget max approval from $150,000 to $85,000
Clarified description of Discourse Trust Level to reflect TL2 (Member) or higher
Updated WG0 requirements to reflect specific date (December 21, 2022) this AIP Idea was published to avoid gaming requirements for participation
Further defined SC appointed Stewards to reflect their need to have domain expertise in the priority focus groups – Operations, Governance, Communications
Changed deadline for start date of future APE Foundation administrator to March 1, 2023 from April 1, 2023
Provided further clarification that this is the maximum budget ask during the 3-month term
