AIP-528: Dissolve The Marketing & Communications Working Group

[SmartAPE]

@nataliecrue

Whether you favor decentralization or not, the idea that operations should start to move under the Banana Bill or be removed altogether is both jarring and problematic.

Yes - cost cutting measures are always problematic; but they are always a facet of running a profitable business.

To be clear, nothing in this proposal (or the other two) suggests that their ops should be moved to the Banana Bill. It’s not setup for that.

@nataliecrue

MarComms and community pods/working groups are often the backbone of ANY DAO.

Apparently our DAO didn’t think so, seeing as the group wasn’t formed in a timely fashion and had challenges getting off the ground.

@nataliecrue

Further, It is imperative that working groups remain independent in order to prevent the usurping of power (real or perceived) and resources to institutional partners and small groups of community members.

Agreed - that’s where the concept of teams and depts originate from.

@nataliecrue

Before suggesting such drastic measures such as cutting off a working group, There may be other methods of mediation before doing so and those should be explored before resorting to said measures posted here in this very forum.

Agreed. And that’s precisely the function that this discussion serves to do; and the final disposition is up to the DAO voters who created the WG in the first place, and thus have the power to dissolve it if they so choose.

@nataliecrue

a. Entering deeply intentional conversations with said working groups to discuss any challenges or pitfalls as well as their accomplishments thus far and exploring the spaces in which they may need assists or other resources to carry out work. Im happy to recommend facilitators if need be.

Agreed. And Popil has filled in some of those blanks. In fact, until I created this topic, very few had a clue about the MarComms activities. Which is precisely how she created a full page - less than 24 hrs ago - to outline those. Had the charter of the WG been followed as was originally written, there would have been an earlier picture. For e.g. while I am certainly familiar with her activities, some of what she outlined in her update were new to me.

@nataliecrue

b. Pushing forth an INDEPENDENT audit of said working groups by an INDEPENDENT party (perhaps, metagov or others) that can surface evidence of said challenges and also highlight any of the milestones the working group has met AS WELL AS gather sentiment and anecdotal evidence of work via partners, DAO members and other adjacent parties. This information can then be used to better inform members of this DAO so they can make much more educated inquiries to this conversation

Agreed. But, like everything else, we lack the structure here in the DAO. Heck, we don’t even have a structure setup for accountability and transparency because it is up to the individual WG stewards to engage or not - and there’s no feasible way for the DAO community to do anything about it because once elected into a position, there they remain until they are voted out. Hence the reason that I wrote this proposal AIP-469: Ape Foundation To Clarify Ability To Terminate Contracts. The incident problem is that, the nature of the community isn’t like one in a streamlined corp because we vote our friends into positions. And so, when it comes to transparency and accountability, nobody wants to say anything for fear of either offending their friends or rocking the apple cart. It’s one of the reasons why most DAOs have failed and the general consensus is that they simply don’t work.

@nataliecrue

c. AFTER deep conversation, perhaps, readjusting salaries/rewards. However, this should be approached in a manner that honors the work and contributions

Agreed. And therein lies the rub. Somehow, nobody finds an issue with a $9K per month, $108K per year job for a position that would normally pay half of that and with the same goals and responsibilities. And from my research into this, right from the start, they literally aligned that with the other WG - regardless of merit - then just rubber stamped it.

I mean, there was an entire public furor over even the Special Council salaries last year - and that made the news during which a lot of people were simply aghast. Then, back in Oct 2023, that eventually got revised somewhat. AIP-350: Shaping Success: Building a Stronger Future with new Special Council Pay. Prior to that, attempts to change it, failed due to the fact that the Ape Foundation said that would be in violation of contracts that it had signed with those contractors. There was a whole lotta noise about that particular fiasco over a year ago in June 2023 AIP-277: Re-evaluating ApeCoin DAO Special Council Salaries Structure.

@nataliecrue

d. The MarComms crew can do an even better job at educating the DAO of what they are working on and the ongoing benefits of keeping this working group in tact. I like most people who do Marketing and/or community management work, often understand the immense amount of time and people and financial resources it takes to push forth impactful campaigns and build communities up in Web3 AND outside of this technological bubble.

Agreed. I made a point of stressing this above. As I pointed out, had this thread not popped up, very few would even have a clue what MarComms where actually doing for the DAO.

@nataliecrue

I have yet to see an outside agency or party come into a DAO and do better work than the people live, eat and breathe Insert DAO here. At the risk of cultural communication and the collapse of marketing campaigns because of agency to DAO disconnects (on multiple levels), I don’t advise hiring an outside party before TRYING to remedy any issues with the current working group.

Agreed. And that’s specifically why I suggested above that even if this WG were dissolved, that she [Popil] could still work with external third-parties to come up with effective programs. An outside group isn’t going to understand the eclectic world-wide community enough to figure out the many nuances, alliances, key players, vibes etc.

@nataliecrue

This is rather antagonistic and severely lacks empathy. This is rather antagonistic and severely lacks empathy.

That’s subjective - and without merit because, rather than regard the entire situation as a collection of issues, it degrades the effort to one that emotes a personal attachment.

Nobody makes a [personal] decision to deny a grant, not renew a grant, defund a program, team etc. terminate a contract or fire an employee. No matter how people will try to reconcile personal feelings to said actions while ascribing them to malice, the decision usually comes down to cost cutting measures for whatever the situation presents. In my case, I made clear that aside from the fact that the DAO is out of money (which everyone seems to be conveniently ignoring), I have yet to see how that cost has benefited the DAO. And I will stress this again: that has very little to do with the WG stewards but more to do with the facts as laid out. It’s not my money. I don’t have any personal connection to the WG stewards. And there is no personal attachment to any of this.

@nataliecrue

Utilizing more holistic approaches to navigating challenges we may have is advised and THAT starts with intentional conversations.

You mean like starting a discussion (as per this thread) that basically says: “Hey, we’re out of money. So, what exactly are you spending $800K per year on, and why should we keep spending that?” After which, Popil subsequently getting wind of it, and races off to come up with an update explaining her activities?

The point that I am making there is, by design, this is a 7-day idea phase discussion. And so, the end result is one of these:

1. It gets extended as fact-finding continues
2. It gets withdrawn if responses are satisfactory
3. It goes to vote where the final deposition is up to the DAO