During admin review, the SC rightfully determined that something like this shouldn’t be a time-wasting proposal. And thus the new Prior Elections category was born. Yay! While I applaud the outcome, I can’t help but feel that I was unjustly robbed of the “Accepted AIP Author” tag since this would have been an easy win. lol. Foiled again
Below are all my data related proposals currently making the rounds:
Do we need a procedure for getting questions and minor data updates like this done via the Facilitators? e.g. here is another request that’s currently making the rounds The phase after Admin Review
If so, how would that work? Looking at the visit/posting trends (yes - I checked; and @bigbull is by far the most active - everywhere) of the GwG, Facilitators and Special Council, most of them are literally absentee landlords who don’t actually engage with the community in any way, shape of form - even when tagged in posts. To wit: The phase after Admin Review. This ofc doesn’t include the Facilitators who manage the proposals behind-the-scenes; since I have found all of them to be super punctual and efficient.
Firstly, the AIP Facilitation processes are currently entirely manual, which makes them highly inefficient. As someone who has written the most successful proposals and led the most successful DAO-wide campaigns—with three live AIPs right now—I’ve found that our outgoing messaging is inconsistent and, in some cases, inaccurate. I’d love to see a complete internal audit of the backend messaging that authors have had to engage in before risk assessments are completed and passed to the Special Council.
For example, AIP-504: Removing Working Group Funding Windows was posted 26 days ago, and the initial Facilitator question period is still ongoing. This should be one of the simplest proposals to process, as it carries no cost to the DAO and requires no involvement from others. It merely amends an outdated item from a previous AIP that applies to Working Groups, which operate independently of the APE Foundation.
This raises questions about the amount of blame placed on the Special Council for processing delays, which often has little to do with them.
Another point to consider is the level of Discourse engagement from elected members of the DAO. Many of us don’t have the time to maintain high post counts or review every thread. For $9,000 a month per Steward, I’d expect their focus to be on managing initiatives and directly contributing to their Working Groups. Some Stewards may also have other responsibilities. Special Council members, on the other hand, review every proposal before it goes live on Snapshot, which requires significant forum engagement, whether or not they’re directly reading them on forum.apecoin.com.
And just for the record, although I don’t put much stock into them, here are my forum stats: 547 days visited, 996 threads viewed, 13,000 posts read, 1,300 likes given, 2,200 received, and 531 posts made. I also take an extremely proactive approach to improving the DAO outside of my GWG scope both mentoring a large amount of proposals which go through our system and posting high-impact independent AIPs.
Proposals authored by any member of the Special Council or GwG (collectively herein: leadership) and deemed to be vital to the operations and processes of the DAO must be fast tracked (ahead of any proposal and regardless of their current status) to admin review and DAO vote.
Ape Foundation authors, including Special Council and all Working Groups, must, via an AIP idea proposal, disclose to the DAO community, any/all on-going proposals which may otherwise not have been written up via a proposal on Discourse. There should be no confidential details of a proposal not disclosed to the community. e.g. the name of the F1 team in AIP-406 was not disclosed to the DAO community during the proposal process.
Ape Foundation teams, including Special Council and Working Groups, must be subject to standard disclosure guidelines. They must disclose when they have any financial, employment, personal, or family relationship with an author, company, or brand associated with a proposal or deal that has been submitted to the DAO.
Indeed. Also, regardless of who is at fault, I wouldn’t look at it as “blame”, but more along the lines of “accountability”.
In any team or corp setting, identifying the cause of ops bottlenecks is the first step. Next, you find ways to address them. Placing blame is counterproductive, ineffective and is a time-wasting exercise that achieves very little of consequence. It’s why each time I get to wail at our overlords, I tend not to single out anyone in particular. When you single out someone in a targeted group and who may or may not even be involved, things tend to take a turn for the worse. Now, if/when someone lashes out because they feel attacked (even though you’re not responsible for other people’s feelings), that’s when sparks tend to fly and objectivity and compromise go out the window. And in an outfit that’s supposedly decentralized (that’s a pipe dream wrapped up in a fallacy), singling out one person makes it even more problematic.
Respectively, I don’t believe that’s relevant. Discourse is the primary outlet for DAO members. It’s like an office. And so, it should be of primary importance that someone - anyone - in leadership be available to address and engage with members of the community on an as-needed basis. Nobody is suggesting that you guys engage in every discussion - most of which have nothing to do with DAO ops anyway. That’s not it. But many times even when tagged, no responses tend to be forthcoming. In fact, from my observation, you guys mostly engage proactively only when you have proposals up or if you see a topic that is either relevant to WGs or of particular [personal] interest.
Again, this isn’t about placing blame, but about voicing key facts about this incident issue in a bid to find a common ground.
Also, if you’re suggesting that at $9K per month - $108K per year each - you guys are so overwhelmed that answering and/or engaging with the community is a burden, I find that concerning - to say the least. I can safely say that most community staff don’t even make $50K per year. Full time. I would know this because I hire those people - including entire teams.
Indeed. However, my missive wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, hence the reason that I said:
“most of them are literally absentee landlords who don’t actually engage with the community in any way, shape of form - even when tagged in posts.”
But while we’re on the subject, if I were to post the stats (I actually ran them before I came up with this thread) of everyone in leadership, it would be immediately obvious as to why I made the comment above. I opted not to post them for obvious reasons; but it’s not rocket science for anyone to go do their own research.
I have run entire teams in private, public and govt. sectors; and so I believe that I am very well knowledgeable in this area as well as how optics are sometimes far more detrimental than data. It’s why when a project is behind schedule, the first thing you do is talk to the team lead or even the entire team in order to figure out what the issues and challenges are - then find ways to address them.
I get what you’re saying, however the concept of “zooming out” is immaterial if the facts aren’t in scope and which can then be used to make a determination about resolution. In fact, it’s precisely what I mentioned above regarding steps in identifying and addressing challenges. If someone says or writes something based on the facts that they have at hand, asking them to zoom out on what they aren’t even aware of doesn’t yield tangible results. And that’s why, asking questions, holding discussions etc. are critical in identifying all the facts material to a specific issue because then all are on the same page and can thus base their feedback from the perspective of a level playing field.
Just the opinion of one person, but anyone who is earning a six figure salary and not working at it full-time is either returning an extremely significant, measureable ROI to the company or has a lot of explaining to do, or the company is giving out sinecures.
