Enable DAO-Wide Voting to Elect Working Group Stewards

[SmartAPE]

@br00no

The sentiment in many people suggesting, and voting for, AA to be led by gov stewards boiled down to “they’re already being paid to do this stuff, so let’s have them do it so AA can move fwd ASAP.” Not unseasonable, but also not what was eventually decided.

Absolutely agree here. As I said above, if the AA isn’t going to be effective, then there’s no use for it. I mean, if/when this AIP goes through and guts AA, what’s the purpose of AA then?

I believe that for the AA to be effective, it needs to be truly autonomous of GWG. And it needs to be a paid part-time position as per that $10K monthly budget.

“The Ape Assembly will have a budget of $10,000 USD each month for community led committees.”

As to the budget, I haven’t found a SINGLE piece of data that explains to the community how they came up with $10K per month above, let alone how the budget was to be spent. Perhaps our hardworking secretary has some insight here. So, @Vulkan.Admin do you have any data for this that you can share? ty

In fact, I just found out from an obscure Google doc that AA was to have not 3, but 4 leaders. A chairman, vice chairman, marketing & comms, treasurer. All volunteer positions. That’s just nuts.

[Vulkan]

Hey @SmartAPE,

@Amplify can probably add additional context on this one, but the authors of AIP-239 proposed the $10,000 for the Ape Assembly with a pretty open interpretation of what it could be used for.

The $10,000 figure was in line with the Operations Fund from AIP-239 and the Operations Fund from AIP-196.

Thanks,

Vulkan

All statements and opinions are my own, not on behalf of the Ape Foundation.

[ApeForLife]

Looking into what’s going on in the working groups. Looks like some want to set up a government, with Speaker, Senators and all. Interestingly and most importantly to me is this sentence in AIP-239 -

‘It is expected that Working Groups will set up their own independent entities, separate from each other, and the APE Foundation.’

The whole purpose of these working groups is actually to each be a separate organisation that advances apecoin and that concludes contracts for projects, marketing etc. They should thus function completely independent from the DAO and seek donations from the DAO only. The DAO as such should not vote on anything, except whether to give a working group organisation funding or not. This should be taken into account. Are any of the people who will make themselves available as stewards aware that they will have to lead an independent organisation and will they continue to receive compensation as steward or cease to be steward at that point. They should cease to be steward to have independence. Any thoughts on this?

[SmartAPE]

Talking about paid, this is Sasha on Discord:

“AA representation is the same kind of job as Gov Steward, so I do think $2k if far too low. Given it’s part-time, though (20-30 hours), $5-6k makes more sense to me as the range to propose. 5-6k chair, 4-5k vice, assuming ofc ppl will vote for 2 reps.”

So, basically Shasha wants to spend the $10K budget on the two top positions, leaving nothing for the other two positions. lol.

ps. For all the AA chatter going on in Discord about this AIP, I am left wondering why that zeal isn’t in here. Discord is terrible for discussion archive and continuity. So, stuff gets lost. I just had to scroll through 1000+ posts since I was last there around 10:30pm last night. And in case you were wondering; nope, nothing new. Just the same time-consuming and time-wasting chatter.

The July 5th AA agenda.

[SmartAPE]

@ApeForLife

@ApeForLife

Looking into what’s going on in the working groups. Looks like some want to set up a government, with Speaker, Senators and all. Interestingly and most importantly to me is this sentence in AIP-239 -

‘It is expected that Working Groups will set up their own independent entities, separate from each other, and the APE Foundation.’

The whole purpose of these working groups is actually to each be a separate organisation that advances apecoin and that concludes contracts for projects, marketing etc. They should thus function completely independent from the DAO and seek donations from the DAO only. The DAO as such should not vote on anything, except whether to give a working group organisation funding or not. This should be taken into account. Are any of the people who will make themselves available as stewards aware that they will have to lead an independent organisation and will they continue to receive compensation as steward or cease to be steward at that point. They should cease to be steward to have independence. Any thoughts on this?

lol! I don’t think so. I believe they were talking about it being an independent group as in:

BEFORE

Ape Foundation (Webslinger & Special Council)
Governance (Stewards, Facilitators, Secretary)
Metaverse (Stewards & 3 working groups)

AFTER

Ape Foundation (Webslinger & Special Council)
Governance (Stewards, Facilitators)
Metaverse (Stewards, Secretary, Metaverse Working Group, Marketing Working Group, Treasury)

[ApeForLife]

I don’t think so @smartape. The Ape Foundation wants no legal responsibility and is too afraid to do marketing etc. The idea as I understand it is that these working groups must set up independent organisations to market apecoin, sign contracts for game development etc, so that in the event the regulators charge these independent organisations if they do anything wrong, the Ape Foundation can say they are independent from these other organisations. The wording is clear ‘Working groups will set up their own independent entities’ - it was stated in other posts about the working groups that the independent working groups will be able to enter into contracts etc that the Foundation is over cautious to enter into - marketing etc.

[SmartAPE]

whoa! That’s a bfd!!! How is this not explained clearly anywhere here? I still don’t believe that. I mean, what’s the point of this AIP then? There’s no way that’s going to work out.

@Vulkan.Admin @amplify.Admin @Gerry @Lost.Admin can we have some clarity here please?

[SmartAPE]

@Chris.Admin some clarity here please. ty

[ApeForLife]

Yes, please I would also like some clarity on the ‘independent entities’ and whether the working groups will become separate organisations or will they just set up other organisations that are able to sign contracts to promote Apecoin. It might be a far off end goal which the working groups as such will just investigate at this stage and it might be the only way to get things done if it is the case that the Foundation is over cautious.

[adventurousape]

Something else that I see potential issues with is the DAO Secretary being treated as an Initiative under the purview of the Governance Working Group. The DAO Secretary is supposed to be independent from the Stewards and be a check on their power. If the person in that position is chosen by and beholden to the Stewards of the Governance Working Group, there are potential conflicts of interest that could arise and the potential for collusion. While I don’t think it would happen under the current leadership, it opens the door up for corruption in the future.

I would suggest keeping the DAO Secretary independent and leaving the elections of that position and the setting of term limits up to the Ape Assembly to preserve that layer of oversight and accountability.

[bigbull]

Please note this proposal is not removing the Ape Assembly.

Regarding applicants for the new steward roles I have a concern. For example, I have one candidate but he is currently employed in a web3 company. He can’t apply in this open method without his current employer knowing this intention.

I think he could add value to the ApeCoin Dao, but these mid career applicants will have this concern as if they don’t win their current employer will likely side line them from core work in their current company.

This leads to applicants that are fitting into three main categories:

1. Inexperienced
2. Without current gainful employment
3. Already have funds or work for themselves so don’t have to worry what others think The core employee/contractor category is limited to apply unless we have some closed process for them to apply like happens in ‘normal’ employment/contractor situations.

Mid career level are critical to get stuff actually implemented in an organisation. Given the open nature and the suggestion of this AIP to make it fully DAO wide and more open, how to get qualified candidates to apply who are already working in other web3 companies?

Also on a side note, I would encourage others to sign up to the snapshot.

https://snapshot.org/#/apeassembly.eth

[MisterHype]

Hi @Amplify,

First of all, I want to thank you for your dedication to the DAO and your efforts.

I have some concerns about the potential implications of this proposal, which been presented by the community above.

I do agree about the motivation, but I think we can find a different way that may be less quicker.

Also sign up, it’s a good start:

@bigbull

Also on a side note, I would encourage others to sign up to the snapshot.

Snapshot

-Mr. Hype

[0xSword]

I agree with their decision to put this forward. I think the gov stewards are highly in-tune with desire of voters and this is the direction they’d like to go. This outlines a path for single round weighted voting for stewards, which could be a really positive change from previous two steward elections. I trust their judgement on this.

[SmartAPE]

@ssp1111

Further to this, I was in the Ape-Assembly channel on Discord last night and was reading through the chatter. I came across a lot more posts from @AllCityBAYC (a Steward of a currently non-existence working group).

AFAIK, the GWG has nothing to do with AA - which was intended to be a separate body as per AIP-239.

So, I asked him this.

I didn’t get a response.

So, as others have pointed out, this AIP idea is bypassing what was intended for the AA. And the involvement of the GWG in its ops is a very bad sign that this is seen as a consolidation of power.

If the GWG, contrary to AIP-239 is going to do this, they just can’t up an do it without a vote to repeal the intent of AIP-239. But guess what? They can. Who is going to stop them?

The whole DAO process is rigged against us, and as each day passes, this DAO draws itself closer to legal action. It’s inevitable.

[ssp1111]

Hey @SmartAPE

It’s kinda disappointing for sure and definitely came as a surprise, at least to me. And as you say, is there really anything the DAO can do?

I don’t know for reals, but here’s a thought (without getting into the minutiae):

Perhaps, active Assembly members could draft up a counter AIP in defense of the original DAO-wide approved initiative (AIP-239) and ask the community if the DAO really wants additional elections.

After all, the result of this AIP could be DAO-wide campaigning and electioneering for 5-6 roles per quarter or 10+ job openings every six months – and this does not include future roles that will no doubt get created. I cannot imagine anyone wishes us to turn into an ElectionsDAO and it’s one of the main reasons I supported the idea of an Assembly.

I would also use the idea of a counter AIP as an opportunity to change the name (Community Council or maybe what it is, an Elections Committee) and while we’re here - let’s request a budget.

Not sure why we keep putting the onus on members/stewards that have to execute these AIPs to come back to the DAO with another AIP with the $$ request (well, I know why but still not a fan ).

---

Anyway, in the end someone or someones need to step up and write up and steward this counter-proposal AIP.

That’s really the only avenue we have - that, and of course your 3.1m bag of voting power .

SSP

[Amplify]

Hello @adventurousape,

I’m happy to answer your questions, and I think you bring up some important edits that need to be included in the AIP.

1. It was a fairly quick decision, which we had to make earlier than later given the timing of AIP-239 passing and when it can be adjusted. We do recognize though, that the seven day Idea phase can serves as this initial discussion period.

2. I really think the Assembly should pivot towards the focus groups we have developing. There’s already a Legal Focus Group with a conceptual goal of authoring a Legal Defense Fund AIP which would serve to indemnify DAO contributors in the case of any legal action against our members. This is… An incredibly huge initiative that will take significant time and resources from the Assembly budget. This Focus Group will likely need to seek their own legal advice/representation given how significant this AIP would be. There’s also the Ethics Focus Group, and further, this conversation about SC compensation can be extended to ALL DAO contributors. We should be thinking about these meta-level issues and trying to make the DAO a more helpful and functioning entity.

3. Similar to my term, someone will unfortunately need to take the short of the stick in order for rotating seats and continuity of turnover to work. For example, if this AIP passed in August, with elections held over September, one of the three elected Stewards would serve a term from October 1st 2023 to April 1st 2024, of course they would be eligible for reelection given they haven’t exceeded their 2 term limit. The other 2 Stewards would continue to serve until October 1st 2024, again these two would also be eligible for reelection for 1 more term.

4. Yes, and thank you for noticing this oversight. We need to edit this in for clarity.

5. a) After having experienced two election cycles so far, I’m actually more of the opinion that ApeCoin DAO elections have a net positive effect on our ecosystem in terms of awareness, participation, and engagement with new AIPs and community members. It’s like a small marketing campaign with all the Twitter spaces and outreach across Web3. I’m actually not convinced it’s the problem I once thought it was. b) This is definitely something we should consider, and coming from you, I think it’s something we should take very seriously.

6. Yes, I think the Ape Assembly just isn’t quite ready yet to make these sort of decisions. You bring up a really good point that the Secretary role is sort of an oversight and accountability position across all the Working Groups. With Governance being the primary mechanism in which work is completed, or consensus is created in the DAO, we do think it still makes sense for 3 elected Governance Stewards to have direct purview over this position, especially given their accountability to token holders as their constituents.

7. It’s unlikely we will do this. Similar with Discourse Facilitators, our (GWG) Initiatives are comprised of highly professional and accountable DAO experts. I think we should be encouraging and retaining top talent as best we can, especially in an environment where these types of people are likely already retained and highly compensated and unlikely to apply for a position with a 1 or 2 year term.

8. We will simply hire someone directly from the community if Vulkan decides to depart. For the Secretary position in particular, it’s important to have someone deeply involved in the ApeCoin DAO already, if they are to have any understanding of what they’re taking notes on in the WG meetings.

Thank you again @adventurousape for sharing your feedback and comments. As your WG0 co-worker, you know this isn’t what we had in mind… We had hoped for more direct organization and action, and I’ve taken responsibility for this full stop as the single Governance Steward for the first 2 months. To be clear, I don’t think the Assembly has failed. I just think we put a huge burden of responsibility on them without fully organizing them first, and it’s now led to multiple DAO approved processes being delayed. Our goal is to ensure these WG’s are set up properly and empowered to fulfill their DAO approved mandates.

-Amplify

[SmartAPE]

Good ideas. But guess what? They’re just going to kick it back anyway. PLUS, what’s to say we don’t run into this very same problem down the road anyway? Then it becomes a circular thing. That’s the issue with DAOs of this kind. You can write something up today. It passes. And before you finish sipping your coffee, someone is already thinking up how to counter it by writing something else - that they like. It will never end.

I already posted my suggestions for how to handle this, but - and I could be wrong - it appears as if they’ve all but decided that the Ape Assembly wasn’t such a good idea.

The Ape Assembly is a good idea. But it needs to be budgeted and funded just like every other leadeship role. I mean, they got $10K fer crissakes. And with 4 positions, who is going to put as much attention and effort into that? Nobody. Even if it’s a part-time gig, I think $4K per month for a few set hours per week, should suffice. It doesn’t need to be a full-time gig.

In fact, the Ape Assembly should very much be like it’s own sister DAO similar to what Yat is doing with his vault idea. The AA gets funded via grants from the main DAO. And is left to operate autonomously - as was intended.

We should probably write up an AIP to do that. I could write it up or you, myself and @br00no can co-author so it’s solid. We could probably convince @Sasha to join in because I think he’d be perfect for the Chairman role because he’s very articulate, smart, has done a lot of work herding the cats in the AA etc.

Then, we don’t need no voting. None of that. We just solicit applications and we run through the normal hiring process - with set procedures. I own two studios, I’ve been hiring people for decades - and I have all the processes and procedures. So, we hire 3 more positions. And ofc Sasha would be required to apply like everyone else - so it’s fair.

We do NOT need to have a set number of votes to fill in the Working Group Positions. Again, we solicit candidates from individuals, studios etc, we go through the normal hiring process and get the best people. No voting. None of that. The third-parties do the contracts with the Ape Assembly. Again, all separate from the main DAO. This is no different from having different companies within a group - all doing different things to benefit the parent group - in this case, the ApeCoin DAO.

Once we get all 4 people in place, THEN we start with active membership growth processes etc.

It’s really simple to do it this way. It cuts down on all the noise, time-wasting etc.

I hope that we can convince @Amplify and those guys to - at least - set aside this AIP for now, and give Ape Assembly another chance.

ps. There’s no need to vote on the AA being it’s own DAO because the AIP that created it, didn’t specify how it would be created; only that it will be created. Great! So we create a sister/sub DAO.

[SmartAPE]

Very good insights there. Well done.

As to this…

@Amplify

We had hoped for more direct organization and action, and I’ve taken responsibility for this full stop as the single Governance Steward for the first 2 months. To be clear, I don’t think the Assembly has failed. I just think we put a huge burden of responsibility on them without fully organizing them first, and it’s now led to multiple DAO approved processes being delayed. Our goal is to ensure these WG’s are set up properly and empowered to fulfill their DAO approved mandates.

Great. Then we should consider making the Ape Assembly a sister/sub DAO as I described above.

[Sasha]

1st, this AIP is based on the false premise that only 30-40 people in AA would vote in steward elections. This is akin to looking at voter turnout for regular proposals and extending that same number to Special Council or Gov WG elections. In reality, far more people show up to vote in elections.

2nd, efforts to increase participation have been stifled or ignored. For example, I suggested multiple times to recalibrate the barrier of entry into AA, as well as to waive the pointless 2-week mandatory forum usage period for known community leaders like Fonz, Josh Ong, and est. 50-100 others (some of these may already qualify for AA, I’m only using names to make an example). Both suggestions have been ignored and Gov WG didn’t even care to put these ideas up for AA to vote on.

3rd, progress has been entirely gatekept by Gov WG. Short of hacking the discord, AA has had no power to put things up for a vote to move faster, make more decisions, and structure itself better. Instead of allowing multiple items to go up for a vote every 2 weeks, Gov WG has only posted a single vote since July 1, for example. And not once - not a single time - has Gov WG consulted AA on the wording of such votes. In recorded meetings and chats people were assured that their opinions matter, but then the next vote would be posted without giving the AA any chance to give feedback on the final wording.

That is the key issue, imho, not AA. Blaming low participation or slow progress on AA is an exercise in revisionist history. Remove the gatekeeping and you’ll see AA flourish and execute on its DAO-given mandate just fine. Despite tensions flaring high at times - as they do in any DAO - we are all adults with higher-than-average IQ who can figure this out.

Finally, 4th - despite these challenges, AA is very close to being fully self-organized (~1 month away) and having a voting process for electing WG Stewards. I do not see how this proposal changes the timeline in a substantial way. AA is about to vote on a number of administrative / structural things, and it can elect its representative(s) AND decide on a steward election process in the same week.

It’s up to the DAO as a whole to decide if they want more DAO-wide elections for non-governance stewards or not. Just note that:

a) this AIP is based on a false premise re: AA voter turnout;
b) AA will be faster and nimble without the Gov WG overhang, which we just voted to remove; and
c) AA is already close to having a process in place for electing stewards.

Given the above, I hope AA is allowed to finish self-organizing and execute on its mandate and that this AIP is voted down. This will avoid voter fatigue, prevent us from becoming an “elections DAO,” and accelerate the elections process for stewards in the long run.

[bigbull]

@Sasha

1st, this AIP is based on the false premise that only 30-40 people in AA would vote in steward elections. This is akin to looking at voter turnout for regular proposals and extending that same number to Special Council or Gov WG elections. In reality, far more people show up to vote in elections.

Let’s be fair there are only 49 wallets verified/connected on here:

https://snapshot.org/#/apeassembly.eth

I agree that the number would be higher for elections, however only way to prove the point would be to get 100 or 200 to sign up now.
(I think 400 or 500 wallets should be allowed to vote).

Also regarding voting, I haven’t seen any complete drafts in discord ready to go. I personally put a few ideas on things for AA to vote. Put a few ideas of AA proposals in discord or a new topic in general to see the take up for the AA.