Yup. And as I said above, it’s also about incentive. Why would an important group such as AA be a vounteer position; given it’s responsibilities? The DAO is giving millions away to borderline dodgy projects, but it can’t think about funding an initiative such as AA. Instead, it’s a volunteer group that’s supposed to be hiring a paid group of people. Makes zero sense.
At least they get $10K per month budget. What would they actually do with it - exactly?
Really? There are only 3 mentions of “Ape Assembly” appearing in the entire AIP-239. And two of those are passing mentions, while the 3rd is a reference to your discussion with Sword.
Literally nothing in there has clear guidelines for the Ape Assembly. And these announces it, says how to join - but nothing about what it actually does.
learning-about-the-ape-assembly-and-how-to-join/
Then there’s this:
That’s as clear as mud.
There’s that. And this isn’t the only instance where transparency is ignored. In fact, since I’ve been here, I’ve noticed that it’s being treated as if it was merely a suggestion by the founders of the DAO.
The AA was created as a “focus group”. That should have been the first clue that it was headed for trouble. Those types of bodies tend to be controlled by a higher level team that provides them with direction, guidance etc. In this regard, that would be the Governance Working Group.
In addition to the above, the GWG also sets the budget of the AA. I am all but certain that nobody actually figured out what AA was going to do with a $10K per month budget. Buy donuts? That’s basically a stipend. And when you consider that about 50 people are in the AA, and the group wanted more people in it, what’s this stipend going to do?
Here’s another issue that I see.
From the Discord and Discourse chatter, I get the impression that some members of the GWG appear to be too involved in the AA. I don’t think that was the intent. And going by this map, it appears that the stewards were too involved in the AA rather than honoring the heirarchy they created and thus “staying in their lane”
And that breach of protocol is how we ended up with this incident AIP idea. That’s wrong. What’s the point of creating a body, then interfere, then knee-cap it?
Actually, this AIP would affect 1-3, 5.
Until and unless the voting process is revised, made more robust and secure, it’s only going to attract the people who have a vested interest in the specific AIP. The voting process is a mess. They should hold off ALL upcoming voting until it’s addressed. I have an AIP idea for that. I have little confidence that it will pass because there are those who are perfectly OK with the [defective] status quo; but at least it will be there for the record.
Those are solid questions. I can’t wait to read the responses - if any.
As I suggested above, if this AIP is withdrawn so the AA can get a chance, I believe my Plan A above is a more robust way to handle this. And specifically the AA needs to have autonomy and be independent of the GWG and the stewards who shouldn’t be meddling with their ops. That would also mean that, though it’s a “focus group”, it still needs leaders (at least 3) - elected within the AA membership - and who should be paid a monthly stipend for their leadership roles. As it is a part-time role, that $10K monthly budget can be split 3-ways. But again, that’s up to the AA leadership to determine.
The AA voting system is rife with issues which could lead to fraudulent votes. So, there’s that too.
Having 3 leaders in the AA also means that they can seek out [qualified] people for the 9 Working Group roles, present them to the AA community, and go through the nomination and selection process.
These are suggestions. I still haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe that this whole thing is going to lead to any tangible results anyway because various people have their own agenda which tends to not be in line with how things should be run efficiently.