AIP-137: The Special Council Nomination Process

I’ve taken the time to thoroughly review these. Going so far as to print out the two proposals, highlighting concerns & questions, even asking opinions from others on certain topics.

I am happy with the proposed process because:

  • It is clearly written & easily amendable in the future
  • Nomination profile & plan for forum use is agreeable
  • The timeline fits perfectly w/ AIP-113’s extension

I have a couple of items that I would like considered to be added. If not immediately, then perhaps through amendment or additional proposal.

  • Nominees should have participation history in the governance of Apecoin
  • Removal of an elected member should be addressed now or in the near future

Through the use Discourse’s level system, nominees should be minimum level 2. That means they’ve read a few proposals, & they’ve commented on a few things. Additionally, I recommend accepting only comments from level 2 users on the threads.

The requirements for participation in this area of governance could be:

Get to trust level 2 by…

  • Visiting at least 15 days, not sequentially
  • Casting at least 1 like
  • Receiving at least 1 like
  • Replying to at least 3 different topics
  • Entering at least 20 topics
  • Reading at least 100 posts
  • Spend a total of 60 minutes reading posts]

While I understand that these restrictions could cause uninformed potential nominees to be ineligible, I believe that this will encourage more members to join as general participants in our DAO, then they can earn eligibility on the next election cycle. I want leaders that are comfortable reading proposals & interacting with the community. That starts by participating here w/ everyone else!

Elections twice a year already could be disruptive to operations, but a member who has a spent at least the above on the forums will understand the community that they are nominating themselves to lead.

10 Likes

Thank you so much for this proposal. I know a lot of work was put into it. My questions and comments are regarding the structure of the Special Council and how it serves the DAO.

  • Does this mean that the Special Council members don’t have to attend weekly meetings since it says “on an as-needed basis”?
  • Does the “or as sufficient time as needed” mean there is no minimum time requirement for the role?

I also agree with those who have commented before me about experience. Since a key function is to work with and assess AIPs, experience with AIPs should be an expectation for Council members. And for all the categories, only needing exposure to virtual assets and cryptocurrencies for a role which oversees a major DAO’s treasury funds seems inadequate.

There are only three categories listed (unless Brand Decision & Informational count as two). It also says in the Lack of Nominees section that the number of Council seats is reduced until the next election if there aren’t enough nominees. If the DAO is able to function without all five, how is the Special Council essential to the governance of the DAO? Especially since each Council member is paid $250K a year.

  • Could you give specific examples on what the Council has done now that it has been around for 6 months?
  • How many AIPs have been tagged with “Needs Administrative Review” and what were the reasons for reviewing them?
  • How many of those AIPs were rejected and why?
  • Is there a process to turn over a seat on the board?
  • How will the current Council share what they’ve learned?

Being that ApeCoin is a cryptocurrency, I would think that experience with managing large DAO treasury funds and DAO governance would be the main expectation over Web2 educational and/or professional credentials and proven experience managing/directing large corporations.

Would it not be best if they had experience in cryptocurrency law, politics, policy, and/or corporate governance specifically?

Given that the election process calls for elections twice-yearly, I fear that 4 months of the year will become election season and just like in politics, less will get done because it will be what most people focus on.

7 Likes

The process looks clear and detailed to me, also appreciated to mention suggested specifications for the nominees background and experience - on this I also agree with other members comments and especially @Novocrypto (would suggest to keep them as guidelines).

6 Likes

Hi @Vulkan, thank you for your questions. I have provided the answers to them below:

  1. I have estimated to the best of our abilities the timeframe for each phase with the current information we have. There are also few days in the proposed timeline for contingencies (i.e. between nomination announcement and applications, as well as between the end of a phase and the Snapshot live voting). If the community prefers to extend one phase while shortening another, open to hear feedback.
  2. This AIP proposes a framework and process to nominate candidates for the Special Council election. The Special Council Election Process proposes a framework for elections, term limits, and frequency of elections. Cartan and Discourse are separate matters and separate AIPs would be posted for their renewal.
  3. The estimated timeframe takes into account reasonable estimates of each phase, including the number of applicants. I would be happy to extend the KYC and background verification process if the community has a recommendation for a phase they wish to reduce or adjust.
  4. I have adjusted the AIP and stated that it is per week.
  5. The 4 AIP categories are: Ecosystem Fund Allocation, Brand Decision, Informational, and Process. Brand Decision & Informational were put together but still considered as two separate AIP categories. I have adjusted the language to state the AIP categories listed below (i.e. removing reference to four).
7 Likes

Appreciate the clarifications, thanks @btang!

3 Likes

Hi @Novocrypto, thank you for your comments and questions. Please see below and let me know if I’ve missed any of them!

  • I provided some rationale above for separating the nomination process and election process into two AIPs here.

Meaning that anyone who applies and passes KYC and background check can potentially be elected to council by voters. Is that a correct understanding?

  • Yes this is correct in the proposed framework and process in this AIP.

If no selection/rejection process based on the experience “requirements”, then how do we ensure that completely inexperienced candidates don’t make it to the council with only popular vote? This is an area that I think we can improve fairness by introducing some level of mandatory requirement.

  • The proposed process were designed for the ApeCoin community to decide which applicants should be eligible for election. If there are minimum thresholds or mandatory requirements that the community believes should be included, happy to hear suggestions and adjust this AIP.

For example a candidate that has 0 minutes read time on Apecoin Forum by the time of application would probably not be an ideal candidate for the role of special council even if they are a crypto lawyer or manage large corporations or have experience and credentials in corporate governance. Or maybe they could be? I’d love to know what others think.

In any case, I think having actual experience in Apecoin DAO governance could be something to add at the application level under Category 3 even if only as guideline!

  • ApeCoin DAO governance activity was considered in the proposed process. There’s a balance between imposing restrictions while keeping the application open to a wide range of community members. In an attempt to thread this needle, this version asks applicants to have a profile or user on this Discourse forum as well as 1 ApeCoin in their wallet.

A small note on the first cycle. I’d imagine that there will be more than enough nominees and candidates but in the unlikely event that there aren’t, what is the process to decide which of the incumbent council seats will be allocated to the next cycle? I guess if all existing council members apply then there won’t be such an issue!

  • Current Council members can voluntary choose not to run if they wish. However, if all Council members wish to remain, seat numbers would be assigned randomly.
7 Likes

Hi @0xSword, thank you for your comments. I agree that participation in ApeCoin DAO governance is important, and as a result, put in place on the application form for a Discourse profile and holding 1 ApeCoin in their wallet. I believe there’s a balance between imposing restrictions while keeping the application open to a wide range of community members. While holding 1 ApeCoin may restrict potential applicants to ~90,000, imposing a minimum requirement of a trust level 2 puts the available applicants to <100.

Adding one or more Special Council members on the edges of the community may also present a large opportunity to onboard thousands more of ApeCoin members.

6 Likes

Hi @btang,

Your topic will be automatically closing in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received, or do you wish to extend community discussion for a further 7 days?

If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.

We look forward to hearing from you.

-Escape

2 Likes

Understood. Yes it would be incredibly limiting in this first election. Like you said <100 people would qualify if changed to level 2 standards. These elections represent the opportunity to attract more people, even those not engaged in the day-to-day forum conversations, to get active and involved. In the future, as our numbers grow, I hope we can look at encouraging forum participation. It would be great if a nominee had post history with their views on Apecoin. Maybe an amendment down the line can be made, or a better solution found. Thank you again for listening & the quick response!

5 Likes

Always great to see engaged members asking such important questions and just as vital that authors are responding. So thanks.

Perhaps we could apply a Rank Voting choice during the nomination process to filter down to a more manageable number of candidates that make it to the Election process?

Thinking out loud here people :thinking:.

SSP

8 Likes

Hi @adventurousape, thank you for your comments. Please find the answers below and happy to clarify or let me know if I’ve missed any.

  • I’ve amended the wording on this AIP to say 3 or more hours per week. The purpose of “on an as-needed basis or as sufficient time as needed” is that while an average or typical amount of time can be estimated per week, there may be instances or time periods that additional commitment may be required. Those are hard to estimate before it happens.
  • Brand Decision & Informational were put together but do count as two separate AIP categories. I’ve amended the wording of this AIP.
  • While it may be unforeseen, the Lack of Nominees contingency is to take into account the potential scenario where the number of candidates is less than the seats up for election. If no candidates present themselves in one election, the other seat members would remain on the Council and therefore the Council would not be empty. I do not believe the DAO can function in its current drafted framework without a Council. For example, no AIPs tagged as Needs Administrative Review could be reviewed for vote.
  • The Council provides oversight of the administration of the foundation. The purpose of the Council is to administer DAO proposals and serve the vision of the community. Each AIP DAR Package is between 10 to 25 pages, depending on the length of the AIP Draft as well as the number of questions from the moderators. As the DAO is still in its early stages and learning and growing in real-time, all AIP DAR Packages have been tagged with Needs Administrative Review and been sent to the Special Council. Weekly meetings are held as well as constant email communications between them. New Council members would be immediately integrated into all these communications.
  • All AIPs returned can be seen in Withdrawn, and the reasons have been posted on the topic themselves.
  • I believe The Special Council Election Process proposes the framework being sought to turn over a seat on the Council.
  • The rationale behind this was so that at least some existing Special Council members would remain to have continuity on the Special Council and encourage a smooth transition process. Additional detail is provided on The Special Council Election Process comment.
6 Likes

I see how this approach makes the process more inclusive which I’m all for especially as it keeps the door open to potentially very strong candidates from the industry who might want to put themselves forward for this role and bring their experiences and expertise to the DAO. But I still think what @0xSword is suggesting is actually quite achievable and even likely to happen anyways in the run up to the nomination process and during the process. We can assume Applicants will naturally engage in discussions at least related to their own nomination!

The trade off of not having a basic requirement for “experience and prior engagement in Apecoin DAO Governance”, would be that anyone can become a candidate or even a council member merely based on voting power of a relatively few even if they have no prior knowledge of how the DAO works.

I’m not saying that this scenario will happen or even that it’s likely to happen but I think it still doesn’t hurt to have some built-in layer of trust and familiarity in the process to reduce the risk of it being gamed or disproportionately influenced by a relatively few large token holders.

Quadratic voting system would have reduced these risks as a more sophisticated and fairer voting system where votes/tokens are tradable. But I understand that we don’t have that capacity atm.

This risk could also be mitigated if we have a clearer process on how a council member may be disqualified at any point post election for example due to unacceptably low level of contribution to their role. Could this be done through a majority vote by other council members?

Ironically we are in a catch-22 situation! We love to know what other eligible voters think about having some basic requirement for existing participation in Apecoin DAO governance, but only a very few (less than 1% of token holders) are here to voice their views on this! :woman_shrugging:t2::sweat_smile:

7 Likes

Thank you for your detailed response.

I’ve read your rationale for keeping the AIPs separate and think it makes a lot of sense. Would it be possible to at least provide a link to the other AIP in each of the AIPs so people can navigate between the two more easily?

Thanks also for answering the question on whether to require prior participation in Apecoin DAO governance or keep it completely free and up to the voters to decide! I added a few more comments under your reply to @0xSword who suggested Trust Level 2 as a basic requirement. my reply here The Special Council Nomination Process - #16 by Novocrypto

I have an additional comment and a question about the role expectations for elected council members. From what I understood, there are no tangible outputs delivered by the council members to the community other than comments that individual AIP authors will receive via moderators in DMs. Is that right?

Could we introduce a direct line of communication between the council members and the wider community as well? This could be in the form of a monthly post by each council member offering their overview and any insights about the DAO’s growth, challenges and opportunities and/or a monthly Spaces by the council where they communicate their vision directly with the community. I think a two-way communication channel that is open to everyone in the community (not just AIP authors) would be appreciated by many.

Finally, any rationale behind the specific salary chosen for this role? It does seem a little disproportionate to the number of hours expected per week for this role!

6 Likes

Thank you so much for your detailed reply. It’s very helpful.

I do agree that the DAO cannot function without a Council as currently structured. It was not my intent to suggest not having one.

I very much appreciate having more details on what the Council does and how new members would be integrated. I think it’s helpful for those who may be considering running to know what the role entails, and for the DAO voters because we can better decide who may be a good fit.

Regarding @0xSword’s suggestion, if being a Lvl 2 was known ahead of time as a basic requirement, something to consider is it might actually drive people to discourse to participate. It would give those who haven’t been involved a chance to see what the role entails to some degree since part of the Council’s purpose is to administer proposals.

Thank you once again for answering my questions in such detail.

5 Likes

Hi @ssp1111, the proposed process in this AIP does take into consideration filtering to a manageable 5 candidates to be considered for election.

We did review multiple Snapshot voting strategies, such as rank choice, quadratic, weighted, and few others, and thought weighted voting was best suited for this process. An ApeCoin DAO voter can allocate their ApeCoin balance to any number of nominees. The top 5 nominees that receive the most ApeCoin would be considered candidates for election.

4 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

As per a few requests, both AIPs were updated with links for easy navigation.

5 Likes

Thank you @btang for your ideas and the ApeCoin DAO community for the thoughtful discussions. A moderator will get in touch with the author to draft the AIP in the appropriate template. Once the AIP is drafted and meets all the DAO-approved guidelines, the proposal will be posted on Snapshot for live official voting at: Snapshot

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. @btang please see your messages for the next steps.

-Pearson

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@btang has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

-Pearson