Haha @AllCityBAYC, appreciate the show of support for the three musketeers!
Being a Discourse Facilitator requires being quite objective which, if SC and Stewies are any indication, means zero/minimal opinion/input on ideas and proposals across Discourse, Discord, Twitter and other public-facing outlets (itâs a legal thing).
That kinda limits what I believe to be my own value-add to the ecosystem, which is trying to bring some objectivity to the ideas/proposal based on my own professional experiences and personal subjectivity.
Then again, it is an important role and we should do our utmost to get members that understand the context as well as the technicals if weâre to sail this ship in the right direction. Historical context being mostly attained by spending the 100âs of hours here in the weeds.
Being objective does not mean not having, or expressing, an opinion on a topic.
My understanding, as there was some discussion of this on Discord, is that the mods here chose not to post. Pretty sure thereâs no law, or legal precedent, about ApeCoin Discourse mods.
I can pick this one up. Discourse facilitators will receive on the job training and will be paid during this time. The âtraining periodâ was removed to lessen confusion about what exactly training period meant in this context, not that facilitators wonât be trained.
And I hear @ssp1111âs point about remaining objective without adding our two cents to the mix, but for my part Iâm on board with anything that will help this ship run smoother⊠and it really all starts with Discourse.
Iâd be honored to be considered for one of these positions, and look forward to more details.
I think for professional reasons any personal opinions, endorsements or undisclosed affiliations should be strictly prohibited from Discourse.
For example, if a facilitator is part of a proposal team they should not have any engagement with the author and/or handler of the account(s) interacting on behalf of the proposal throughout the duration of its time in/on Discourse.
I think you meant for ethical reasons? In which case I agree. However I do welcome, and encourage, mods to express opinions on items which there are no conflicts.
Mods are, or should be, some of the more well-established and experienced members of the community in order to get appointed. Itâd be a disservice to everyone to have them silenced on topics that do not impact their roles or their ability to moderate the board based on established, known/written rules and protocols that are outside of anyoneâs opinion or preference.
Itâs important that those facilitating the AIP process arenât seen to be influencing voting decisions to avoid any potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
Yet the current âWorking Group Guidelines and the Governance Working Group Charterâ AIP proposal was posted by, and has been moderated by, a forum mod who has expressed opinions extensively in the thread, and who stands to gain considerably by its passing.
It you donât start somewhere, youâll go nowhere.
I recognize your concerns and I believe weâve thoughtfully addressed oversight within the real-world application of what weâre trying to achieve.
It also allows for near constant improvement with oversight by a third-party not involved in the governance process (DAO Secretary), high-context DAO members (Ape Assembly) and all token holders.
Do you not think this makes sense going forward for facilitators?
BT, was this addressed to me and are we now discussing a different topic?
If so, absolutely in no way is âreal world oversightâ addressed. I made that case very clearly in that thread, and at the very least those drafting it could offer find a credible person or business, or two, that assess ethical conflicts to openly state otherwise and put their professional reputation behind it.
The author outright stated, in response to my concerns posted last night, not even having heard of proper 3rd-party oversight being brought up. Disconcerting and doesnât inspire confidence or credibility, nor does it set a good example of what can be done.
And back on point, itâs a mod posting an AIP and expressing strong opinions on it, while actively moderating the thread. [EDIT: that read reopened and Iâve removed a concern here that Iâve since commented on in that thread.]
A simple example is anyone paid in an official role thatâs also getting paid via Thank Ape - much less for activity being done relating to the paid role in the first place - is an obvious and real example. If âweâ decide thatâs OK, then fine, but it isnât ethical, overly transparent, or something regulators would likely ignore. Itâs how pyramid and MLM operations work.
None of this is a comment on any person. Itâs the process and structure thatâs concerning, and if it were well done with proper oversight it wouldnât - it COULDNâT - even be brought up as a serious concern because such concerns and potential for abuses simply wouldnât exist.
Want to make sure weâre talking about the same thing.
Regarding this proposal, do you believe the below makes sense in order to mitigate COI issues? Do you have an alternate suggestion?
Regarding the WG proposal. We recognize that there are a many areas that need oversight and also recognize the inherent challenges of establishing proper oversight if many of the current people working on the DAO daily are establishing those rules.
Instead of trekking down this challenging path, we opted to allow the Ape Assembly the ability to establish an Ethics Committee or any other Initiatives they see fit in order to meaningfully address these issues moving forward. This could include engaging independent third-parties or any other approaches the Ape Assembly deemed valuable.
As someone with deep domain-expertise here it would be great to see you leading the charge to get the Ethics Committee up and running as soon as the Governance WG and Ape Assembly are established. Thank you!
Where a conflict of interest (COI) could exist, Iâm am fine with a rule preventing a forum mod from commenting. Of course that should then extend to IRL, Discord, Spaces, etc. It make good sense.
I do wish that thereâs some form of exception where we would benefit from a mod expressing a personal or professional opinion, or at least allow them to post a suggestion to get a 3rd-party opinion, on something if that mod has extensive, even unique, experience on the subject. Based on non-privileged information I mean.
Suppose we have a master gamer as a forum mod. Iâd wish to hear what that person has to say on the subject, especially if they have crucial concerns, experience or info not otherwise being known or expressed by others.
IRL thereâs a recusal process. Online Iâve seen similar. I was a mod on a major musicianâs forum and if there were personal or professional conflicts - real or potential - weâd openly state it and let a different mod handle that person or subject.
Same thing on the national arts grants program Iâm a judge for. Itâs literally among the first boxes we have to tick when adjudicating a grants proposal, with a comment box for explanation. 1. Affirm youâve read the pertinent rules that apply and agree youâll totally abide by them, and 2. disclose any potential conflicts. Every single proposal. I end up recusing myself often, and I donât mind a bit.
Perhaps here there could be similar clauses here for all our benefit.
Personal note: I greatly appreciate your encouragement. Iâm unsure how to proceed with that. Ethics Committee has been suggested on Discourse, and qualified persons expressed interest, but crickets. Not wanting to overstep, I presumed itâd be moved forward when it âshouldâ. However now we have major initiatives & processes moving forward without such oversight, while past initiatives already activated arguably require such scrutiny, so ⊠I dunno. Also supply / demand. Maybe ppl just donât care, same as IRL.
This is an interesting one. Perhaps the corporate equivalent is the HIPPO (Highest Paid Persons Opinion) or the âPerson with the loudest voiceâ.
When you allow people with âpowerâ (either natural or elected) to share their opinions and thoughts without first considering the timing of what is being shared, naturally (but not necessarily for the better) people will follow. This is potentially a risky precedent, as it could result in the development of an echo-chamber.
I would advocate for the importance of building a framework which encourages âdiversity of thoughtâ from a broad spectrum of stakeholders as a starting pointâŠthen, through discussion and collaboration the vetting of ideas.
Giving a platform to the HIPPO or person with the loudest voice from the onset is likely to cripple creativity and engagement.
PS - There are plenty of Design Thinking frameworks which can support the above position. More than happy to share further info if there is value in doing so.
Essentially these 36 methods all sit within whatâs called the Double Diamond. The idea being that methods can be âstitchedâ together to support whatever outcome is being worked towards.
For example, letâs say the Facilitators are helping with this item - âCoordinating with authors to move AIPs through the pipeline and informing the community of these updates according to DAO approved guidelines.â
Rather than simply rely on the author to write-up a proposal and hope for the best, various methods could be used to produce what would ideally be a more robust solution, in this case a proposal which has been authored from the community.
Supplementing the existing forum for discussions, leveraging tools like digital whiteboards would allow more visual communication and collaboration. Historically Iâve found these methods and digital whiteboards to be incredibly beneficial when it comes to many of the Understanding and Making items.
There is a lot of detail behind the adoption and successful application of each method, more than happy to share.
imho by nature of being a facilitator, and becoming a trusted face, all opinions on AIPs become conflicts of interest. The only opinion a discourse facilitator (or anyone affiliated with the foundation/etc.) should have is whether an AIP/post aligns with existing, clearly-stated guidelines and then referencing those guidelines. Otherwise it should be âNot sure, specific rules on this arenât definedâ and encouraging others to discuss/define rules.
This complete loss of personal opinion is imperative to the position, imho. They can still vote on AIPs, though, so someone can look up their voting history and sort of know post-fact which they liked and which they didnât.
SSP
