Thanks for the reply @badteeth and for the ongoing efforts you and the fine individuals are doing in this endeavour
Just a quick thought or two before I reply to the changelog:
This simple concept of responding to community feedback is such an inherent part of a DAO, and it’s surprising just how few authors take the feedback to refine, revise or abandon their ideas. Appreciate it when members actually respond with changes.
Also, certainly not a fan of the tail wagging the dog. And for all of one’s exalting Nouns DAO as the model “decentralized” entity but to then seek preferential outcomes in this DAO doesn’t seem to reconcile, at least not on the surface.
RE: Changelog
Glad to see priority focus groups listed but still unclear to me how existing Working Groups like Boring Security, IRL Events, ApeComms, etc will be treated.
Nothing explicitly stated leaves room for concern over being somehow herded under the new groups - Operations, Governance, Communications - which I imagine will have new templates, processes and reviews.
Normally we’d have time to discuss, debate, refine and revise, but I understand the situation and looming deadlines.
Trusting that WG0 stays within its remit and that the “new” AIP process is streamlined, fair and speedy.
Thanks @badteeth and everyone else involved for incorporating so much feedback.
Unless I’m reading this incorrectly, I think the wording in item 3 below needs to be changed. It says Special Council will not be voting but item 1 says they will be selecting the first 3.
A total of seven members who serve within Working Group Zero on behalf of the DAO. They perform administrative oversight, are responsible for budgeting based on the needs of WG0 as approved by the Special Council, and they are responsible for reporting on all WG0 activities between the Special Council, the Administrators, and the Community.
The APE Foundation Special Council will appoint three stewards from amongst ApeCoin DAO members who have achieved Trust Level Status 3 (Regular) on ApeCoin Discourse to lead the priority focus groups – Operations, Governance, Communications.
a. The purpose of this appointment is to be able to have resources in place to hit the ground running immediately upon the commencement of this interim mandate.
WG0 will elect the four remaining stewards in a TBD process to be completed no later than January 14, 2022.
Special Council members cannot vote on the selection of Stewards, or serve in the position of Steward
I think these shouldn’t be grouped together as we must remember that BORING SECURITY is DAO funded twice now, IRL EVENTS was funded as a feasibility study, however APECOMMS was rejected at the first AIP vote by 75% majority (know you have reworded and slashed costs by 50% to try push it through this second time), but has no official funding or connection to apecoin DAO structure whatsoever. So I think each will have different paths and cannot be compared. Maybe consider editing your point?
Love it. I especially love that you all are keeping a ChangeLog. Discourse needs a native changelog or redline feature!
Question: Under Stakeholders eligible, did you take a personal snapshot on 12/21/22?
Also, a deadline is not mentioned for the Steward Trust Level 3 appointment. Was that intentional? I noticed that you had deadlines for the Stakeholder Eligibility.
Thank you, this process has been a great example of the power of working together towards a common goal.
What preferential outcomes are your referring to?
Goal with focus groups is to respect the people that have domain expertise and have done the most thinking around these issues by making sure they’re core to these discussions. As we don’t want to exclude anyone who wants to participate they’ll be open to all – so the expectation is they’ll evolve in an organic way / decentralized way around those with skills and interest who can add value.
The three priority groups were conceived to help through the Cartan transition and provide structure to facilitate WG0 and additional focus groups as they arise around overall mission and DAO business.
Deadlines are definitely looming, but I believe we’re in pretty good shape to gain consensus around a path forward.
We discussed various approaches to separating these, but at the end of the day any member of WG0 with domain expertise or interest will be able to participate on any focus group they’d like so it made more sense to push them together for this proposal to eliminate some unneeded complexity. More context here:
I believe, and could be wrong, but didn’t a group of smart individuals (Special Council members, future SC members, ApeCoin DAO contributors, etc) all gather together and collectively intellectualize that a 3-month extension to Cartan’s 2022 agreement would be the best way forward for the DAO – only to have that conclusion be trimmed in half by a single voter/member?
Look, it is what it is and we’re a long way from how we’d all like to see the DAO operating – but I sure hope that we’re all learning from these early days.
I understand how it could look that way, but we’ve been operating on the, “new information rule.” That is, we don’t know what we don’t know, so we’re constantly evolving the proposal in attempt to find consensus in the best way possible.
We initially chose a three month RFP process to make sure we could get it done, but consensus amongst stakeholders after getting a more clear picture of Cartan’s responsibilities is that one month will be sufficient if we have the three priority focus groups up and running the day the proposal passes.
Just to speak to this point specifically, I’ve been on the side of faster, shorter, less through the authoring process while minimizing risk.
I think there are a number of DAO members that agree with this approach as well. What I think was put into the document was a ‘starting point’ and as @badteeth said as we gain new information we should adjust our plans.
Thank you, I can’t believe there’s not a changelog built in – we’ll have to get it on the roadmap!
My understanding is that we can do a retroactive snapshot based on block time – we’re still discussing the mechanics, please let me know if you have some insight here.
Deadline for steward TL3 is the same as stakeholders, will get this clarified. There’s been some discussion that this pool of candidates is too small. Reaching out to SC for their take since it will be on them to appoint first three stewards.
The more times I read thoroughly through the proposal, the more I like it; I try to find faults or ways to improve but as @wrongplace said so perfectly - this is just a “starting point” and the ability to adjust as and when needed with new info and to be open to this, is what I think will see this over the line initially.
Also, thanks for your prompt replies always @badteeth.
There’s been some discussion that this pool of candidates is too small.
Discussion among who?
And why SC gets another take on this pool when they appoint the first pool is beyond me. My opinion is that TL3 has shown the most passion for the group and should definitely be afforded benefits in this process.
If the pool for the 4 elected stewards opens up, then so should the pool for the 3 appointed ones — and they shouldn’t be appointed, but also elected from that expanded pool.
Been raised a few different times from a few different angles – most recently discussed on the general voice channel in the Discord following questions about it in the ApeComms space at noon today.
This is about the pool for the 3 stewards appointed by SC. To be clear, SC have no vote on the other 4 stewards elected by WG0 who make up the majority of WG0 stewards.
For clarity sake, this is in the Stewards section of the Interim Working Group section.
Also, @Amplify has put together a first draft to clarify the election process based on the call in Discord today so we can include that in the AIP Draft. Hit him up for doc access if you want to contribute, thank you
