AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups

[SmartAPE]

In the spirit of transparency:

Note that though the graphic in the proposal shows the facilitators under the GwG hierarchy, unlike the secretary, they are apparently neither under the GwG nor beholden to it. And so, being separate entities, they are unaffected by this proposal to close the GwG. I didn’t know this until early this morning. Imagine my surprise. And I am all but certain that some of you here in the DAO didn’t know this either.

OVERSIGHT CHAIR ROLE

---

I mention the above issue with the facilitators because I had previously expressed concern about the vacuum which would be left behind as a result of the successful closing of all 4 working groups. If you recall, the original AIP-466 only closed the 3 working groups, thereby leaving the GwG alone. Recent events prompted the inclusion of this group in a bid to just burn it all down and move forward with another experiment. We tried this. It didn’t work. We try something else.

And so, in my original revision to this AIP-466 yesterday after I had received some guidance from others, I created a [non-salaried] Oversight Chair role - with me at the helm. I had hinted at such a role yesterday. Ref: Resignation from ApeCoin DAO Secretary Position

The idea behind this role was that we can’t just tear it all down and not have something in place to fix what came before. And we can’t go back and solicit the same usual suspects who are likely to retain the [failed] status quo. Further, I only trusted myself and very few others in the DAO, to take on this responsibility, without fear or favor while also adhering to accepted standards of transparency and accountability.

And so, the role, working in cooperation with the Ape Foundation, would work on the restructuring of the DAO, implement policies and processes which would ensure that we build back better, with fiscal responsibility, as well as transparency and accountability being paramount. It would also act a bridge from the lower decks to the upper management overlords so to speak.

The role was also to serve as a conduit between the DAO community (us plebs in the lower decks) and the DAO leadership such that we could alleviate the consistent complains about leadership either being absentee landlords, highly paid “no show” grifters or seemingly ignoring the DAO community that’s actually paying them for their participation in those roles.

In addition, as part of the guidance for the role, I had planned to hold weekly video town halls whereby any/all issues in the community could be addressed - even without the participation of the Ape Foundation; and to that end, I would make fair and unbiased recommendations to the Ape Foundation, leaving it up to them to either adhere to or ignore them.

As I had never been in a leadership role in the DAO, nor engaged in behind-the-scenes power play shenanigans, I was confident that I wouldn’t run the risk of being accused of engaging in a conflict of interest similar to the whole 0xPolygon / Gerry or Banana Bill / CapTrippy role transitions. I actually discussed this very premise in a one hour podcast which I was in last week. Ref: SANDDAO Podcast 25 With SmartApe .

I later removed this Oversight Chair role requirement when I was later advised that:

1. The facilitators are unaffected by the closure of the GwG.

2. The Ape Foundation already has other plans in place that would - hopefully - address the on-going concerns, and may be in conflict with the creation of such a role.

180 DAY HALT TO ANY/ALL FUNDING PROGRAMS

---

I had also included an item which would have halted any/all funding for new proposals for a period of 180 days following the date of the proposal passing.

I removed this as well because I was advised that it could have the side effect of discouraging people from submitting proposals.

To be clear, this issue still concerns me because people could write all the proposals that they want, but if the DAO has no money to fund them, then what? I guess we’ll find out soon enough. And I’m not even joking about that part. REF: Ape Foundation Transparency Report - 2024 - Q1

ADDENDUM

---

For those of you who aren’t keeping up. Below is the timeline of the necromancing of AIP-466.

JUNE 20th

The original AIP-466 to close all 3 working groups was published.

JULY 5th

I receive the first set of admin review questions. For some reason, they are not in this thread. I will post them below for context.

---

Upon the team’s review and discussion, please find the list of our initial questions as below.

1. Is the Ape Foundation expected to engage in any of the steps of the AIP implementation? If so, please specify the steps and elaborate on how it is expected to work.

I believe that this is already covered in the STEPS TO IMPLEMENT section. Everything in that section would be implemented by the Ape Foundation.

2. Please update the Overall Cost to represent this proposal’s maximum potential financial impact.

Not sure that I understand the request; but I will try to add some clarity.

The financial impact would be to the people in the Working Group being paid with 30-day notice. For example, if the Working Group was closed sometime in July, then the team would be paid for July + Aug (the following month).

3. Please update your Proposal Description to include a summary of the specific details outlined in your Steps to Implement section.

I believe that each item in that section is already detailed. Was there something missing?

4. Please update your Steps To Implement to include any milestones, key performance indicators, and any associated costs including the $500k USD yearly maximum earmarked for third-party contractors.

I don’t see a $500K entry in the proposal.

5. Your proposal outlines a process in which the “Governance Working Group and SC will collectively manage and co-ordinate the consulting and hiring of any third-parties required for these activities.” Please provide proof of consent from the Governance Working Group and Special Council, and their willingness to cooperate in the implementation of this proposal, or alternatively, the proposal will be Rejected for violating the community guidelines.

As the Special Council is an advisory board that operates at the behest of the DAO, I don’t believe that a DAO member requires their consent to perform any request. Perhaps they can shed some light on why a request by a DAO member - and which is subject to a DAO vote - requires such a consent.

6. The Working Group budgets mentioned in the Abstract are yearly estimates based on an approved 6-month budget. Please update your Abstract to more accurately reflect this.

I am unable to edit the proposal. To that end, please make this change:

From this:

“The current budgets of the aforementioned working groups are as follows:”

To this:

“The current yearly budgets based on an approved 6-month budget of the aforementioned working groups are as follows:”

7. Do you provide consent to apply updates to the relevant areas of your proposal based on your responses to the questions above?

Yes

8. Do you provide consent to share these questions with the community in this forum?

Yes

---

SEPT 3rd

I received notification that my AIP had to be split into three parts.

---

Your AIP Idea was tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” and sent to the Special Council. Upon careful review, the proposal has been deemed “Return for Reconstruction”. In doing so, the Special Council cited the following:

• Could you please resubmit this proposal as individual proposals for each specific Working Group, referencing the charter for each one?

• Please remove any references to clawbacks from the resubmissions.

• We encourage you to explore the Resubmission process, using the AIP Draft Resubmission Template as a resource.

• AIP Resubmission authors have the option to forgo the standard 7-day AIP Idea phase and may request to enter directly into the AIP Draft phase.

---

SEPT 7th

No pressure. So, I did as requested.

AIP-522: Dissolve The Metaverse Working Group
AIP-523: Dissolve The Web3 Development Working Group
AIP-528: Dissolve The Marketing & Communications Working Group

SEPT 24th

In light of the on-going furor regarding the resignation of the DAO secretary and the furor that ensued, I received notification that the SC had gone back and reviewed AIP-466 and reversed the earlier decision.

---

I have an update regarding this proposal. Special Council has noted, “Upon further reflection, If you could please reference the charter for each WG, and remove any references to clawbacks, this AIP can return to administrative review, while including all of the working groups.”

May I assist you with these edits and move this proposal back to Administrative Review?

---

Incidentally, that decision was part of their guidance released yesterday explaining how this process would work going forward. Ref: Regarding the Status of Returned Proposals

SEPT 24th

Later came additional guidance following a query that I had previously sent regarding the necromancing of AIP-466.

---

Updating the previous communication, there is presently not a process for “reopening” an AIP that has been Returned for Reconstruction.

However, we ask you to resubmit the AIP regarding this following note from the Special Council:

“Upon further reflection, if the author can please reference the charter for each WG, and remove any references to clawbacks, this AIP can return to the AIP process, while including all of the Working Groups.”

Should you resubmit your AIP with these stipulations included, we would be happy to forego the seven-day community feedback period, and move directly to Drafts.

We thank you for your commitment to improving our DAO and its processes, and look forward to hearing from you.

---

SEPT 25th

I replaced the contents of the original AIP-466 with parts from the other three prior proposals, while also including the GwG, removing funding claw backs, costs etc. as per guidance received.

And so came to pass the new revision of AIP-466.

Now you’re all caught up.