Creation of process for Stewards to put up an AIP independent of their Working Group

PROPOSAL NAME:

What AIPs a Steward can put up independently when they are in a working group?

TEAM DESCRIPTION:

@bigbull - FYI. A vote was held by the GWG and the majority of Stewards did not vote for it to be a GWG proposal. Therefore this proposal is being proposed on an individual basis by @bigbull

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:

We have many working groups with specific focus areas. The idea is that if you are in a Working Group and wish to put up a proposal related to that working group. E.g. this proposal is related to Governance, you first have to ask your working group and the Stewards if they wish to be co-authors on the proposal. If the majority of working group stewards refuse to be on the proposal you can still put the proposal up with the disclaimer that the working group has rejected it to be an official working group proposal.

If a working group Steward puts up an AIP on a topic not related to their Working Group, but potentially related to another Working Group, there is no change from the current process and they are not required to ask for approval from the related working group.

This would apply to current (Governance, Marketing and Communications, Metaverse Working and Web3 Development Groups) and any future Working Groups.

BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM:

  • Working Group Stewards are working in roles in the DAO and as they are using the title of that role when putting up an AIP it can be confusing for voters. There is an implied endorsement from that working group.
  • Enhances communication and collaboration amongst working group stewards (within the same working group).
  • Another point, is that if an AIP is from one Steward, if they leave for whatever reason (personal, don’t get re-elected etc) then the Working Group Organisation, e.g. GWG Non Profit is NOT responsible for it. If it is from the group, then a Steward leaves the Group will need to take over the implementation of it. This is better as we have short terms, 1 to 2 years as Stewards, so it ensures better growth of the Working Groups.

DEFINITIONS:

Working Groups are intentional community led infrastructure, which allow for the execution of DAO-approved mandates. Working Group Charters outline a mandate for a Working Group, which must align with the vision, and values of the ApeCoin DAO.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENT:

  • This would start as soon as the AIP is approved. It would be ongoing until an AIP is passed to replace this AIP.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

  • How many Working Group AIPs are initiated by each Steward in that Working Group.
  • Track how many AIPs each working group has put up to vote and how many each group has had pass.
  • Slack will be used to track the internal votes of the stewards. The Secretary will make a quarterly summary report.

REPORTING EXPECTATIONS:

They would put in the Working Group quarterly reports how many times the WG accepted or rejected their first right of refusal to be the author or co-author (TBC) of AIPs. The Secretary Initiative would be responsible for the KPI updates.

OVERALL COST:

“Total amount requested from the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund = $0.”

  • It would require the working groups to keep a log of the accepting or rejecting of the first right of refusal to author an AIP strictly within the core focus of that working group.

If the goal here is transparency, I would propose all voting occur on Snapshot.

2 Likes

BigBull… With all due respect, this proposal raises concerns for me.

Firstly, the timing is an issue as it was posted the morning after I released a transparency-focused AIP to help hold Working Groups and Stewards more accountable for the community as shown here: Enhancing Working Group Transparency.

Secondly, as someone who has had an AIP copy/pasted without my contact or permission, and rewritten a proposal with the expectation of being added as a co-author, but was not after multiple requests, I am particularly sensitive about anyone looking to obtain credit for proposals they were not a part of writing.

Nonetheless, I agree that there should be more discussion within the Working Groups when a member wants to put something forward independently. However, requiring co-author status for proposals that the other Stewards had no involvement with is not the solution.

I also think it’s healthy to have different ideas within Working Groups that ultimately, the community can decide on via DAO-wide vote. The key is to encourage healthy discussion like we’re able to do here – as we don’t want little wolf packs of Working Groups operating the DAO in every corner ha. Diversity and different shades of logic = good.

But lastly, there’s also a little irony here considering that this very proposal was not shared with me before you posted it :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

In conclusion:

  • Yes, there should be more dialogue between Stewards when a related proposal is submitted.
  • No, the fate of these ideas should not be at the mercy of two people who had no involvement in writing them, nor should they be given credit as co-authors.

AC

1 Like

People are still talking about my AIP.

Do I get any money yet?

3 Likes

Haha… I feel like we should likely get a call going to see if you’re interested in helping out on the initiative. Not sure about your bandwidth but always happy to chat brotha.

1 Like

Hi @bigbull ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.
  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.
  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.

-@Facilitators

1 Like

Agree @AllCityBAYC said. “The fate of these ideas should not be at the mercy of two people who had no involvement in writing them, nor should they be given credit as co-authors.”

I don’t want the workflow politicized, so I do not support or have any interest in this proposal. It would also disrupt the independence and decentralization of other working groups.

1 Like

Firstly, I have circulated this to all Stewards and also to some potential future Stewards.
Secondly, Thank you @popil for taking the time to give your opinion.

Thank you for your feedback. They are 100% not at the mercy of anyone. If the working group reject the right to include in the Working Group, the Steward can freely put up the AIP, simply with a disclaimer. As I have shown above.

Example
A vote was held by the GWG and the majority of Stewards did not vote for it to be a GWG proposal (Bigbull - Yes, AllCity - No). Therefore this proposal is being proposed on an individual basis by @bigbull

If they include it, then it would be part of the Working Group mandate and not outside of their scope as a Steward. This is a benefit to Stewards. The initiator can be called Author, with the Working Group listed as Co-authors.

It also removes confusion, where people think if a Steward puts up a proposal with the title of that group in their name, it has something to do with that Working Group.

Another point, is that if an AIP is from one Steward, if they leave for whatever reason (personal, don’t get re-elected etc) then the Organisation, e.g. GWG Non Profit is NOT responsible for it. If it is from the group, then a Steward leaves the Group will need to take over the implementation of it. This is better as we have short terms, 1 to 2 years as Stewards, so it ensures better growth of the Working Groups.

I agree, this is nothing about politics, it is about being elected to perform a role in a specific area, Governance, Marcomms etc. It is very normal business practice, while in an active role to put your ideas directly related to that role into that group and at a minimum let the Stewards decide together to include it or not. After all they are equals chosen by the DAO.

Regarding independence and decentralization, the working groups management are selected and replaced by elections from a DAO wide vote. The Charter of the working groups are also at the will of the DAO voting, as AIP-239 clearly states this line:
any DAO member can identify improvements to current Initiatives or propose ideas on how to better meet the mandates in those charters.

Working Group Basics Using these tenets as our guide, any DAO member can propose a Working Group Charter to create a new Working Group. Based on Working Group Charters, any DAO member can identify improvements to current Initiatives or propose ideas on how to better meet the mandates in those charters. If approved, it would be up to the Working Group Stewards to implement these ideas. If an idea is not acted on by a Working Group, any DAO member can propose that idea, with the necessary budget, as an Initiative in an AIP to be voted on by the DAO. If the DAO approves the AIP, the Working Group will be obligated to incorporate the Initiative into their operations using the budget approved by the DAO.

2 Likes

Sorry, I will stop the discussion. This should be discussed in our private work chat, There’s no need to discuss it here or politicize it. Please adhere to the basic principles of decentralization.

1 Like

As a non-WG Steward, I’m obviously not privy to conversations occurring behind closed doors.

That said, I think any member of the DAO should have the ability to voice their opinion and submit proposals to the DAO, either independently or in coordination with other members. This includes WG Stewards and SC members.

I think it is on all of us to apply the same level of scrutiny on these AIPs as we do AIPs from non-elected members of the DAO.

Now, if operating in this fashion isn’t in the best interest of the DAO, they perhaps other operating models should be explored as we continue to learn and grow as a community.

Just my two cents for what they are worth.

1 Like

Hi @bigbull ,

Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].

A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template. Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.

-@Facilitators