Vacant Seat for 3rd Governance Steward?

[Evil]

It’s clearly visible that we need more hands of deck as a DAO to bring improvements to the DAO, now that there is an empty Governance steward position, there’s only 2 stewards looking over this area, same as Mark & Comms and Metaverse WG.
Should we just let stay as it is or anyone else, including GWG stewards there should be a 3rd steward working as a proxy to fill in the empty chair?
Just a thought

[Moonlyght]

I believe the Governance Working Group structure needs a change. We need new leadership founded on different principles. Personally, I feel ashamed about how the ApeChain RFP is being handled. The absence of a ‘none of the above’ option in the vote essentially coerces the DAO into making a decision where the community’s voice is disregarded.

[bigbull]

We have looked at this and also the AIPs related to such a situation. Here is some background information in terms of the way this is handled based on the passed related AIPs.

AIP-239 clearly states that elections occur every six months.

AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter

Proposal Name: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter Proposal Category: Process Abstract The goal of this AIP is to operationalize the ApeCoin DAO through autonomous Working Groups, beginning with the Governance Working Group which will allow our community to continue the DAO approved governance process which allows for the suggestion, discussion, voting and implementation of proposals. This will empower members of the DAO to make meaningful contributions and partic…

@Amplify

5. Governance Working Group Stewards & Elections:

• This AIP will mimic the timing, election cycles, process, and eligibility criteria outlined in AIP-137: The Special Council Nomination Process, and AIP-138: The Special Council Election Process. Specifically, elections for the Governance Working Group Stewards will begin in “Cycle Two” and will take place on Discourse in the “Working Group Steward Elections” Category. These specifications are briefly outlined below:
  • Election Cycles:
    • Timing and cadence of elections: Elections shall occur every six months.
    • Nomination and election to occur over November & December; elected Steward(s) to start in January (“Cycle One”).
    • Nomination and election to occur over May & June; elected Steward(s) to start in July (“Cycle Two”).
    • The following seats will be up for election at these times:
      • Cycle One: Seat One
      • Cycle Two: Seats Two, & Three

The cadence of elections is clearly stated here.

Also it refers back to AIP-138: The Special Council Election Process which it says it follows for Stewards. Again very clearly we have to wait till the next election cycle.

@btang

Off-Cycle Departures

• In the event of the voluntary or involuntary departure of a Special Council member, that seat will be incorporated into the upcoming election cycle, after which it will return to the same election cycle schedule that it would have been on if the departing member had remained.
• Any partial terms for a Special Council member from off-cycle departures will not be counted towards the term limit. For example, if a Special Council seat is in Cycle One but a Candidate is elected to replace the Special Council member in Cycle Two, then the 6 months served by the newly elected Special Council member will not count towards the term limit.

@Amplify

In the event that a Steward is removed, steps down, or is unable to continue as a Steward, for whatever reason, any temporary vacant positions will be filled by a contributor selected by the Ape Assembly, until an election to assign a new Steward to that Working Group has been completed.

As there is no Ape Assembly as the initiative was cancelled by the GWG and thus cannot follow this suggested process. Also this suggestion is slightly in conflict with the earlier statement in the same AIP that the Stewards process mimics the Special Council Process. As SC process does not have this option of a contributor. That said a contributor would be like any other non elected personnel if we decide to include such a role in the upcoming budget.

@AllCityBAYC and myself have discussed this internally as GWG Stewards and as yet haven’t made an official statement from the GWG to the community. I have only included the points here for ease of reference and are not an official position of the GWG. Thanks @Evil

[bigbull]

@Moonlyght

The absence of a ‘none of the above’ option in the vote essentially coerces the DAO into making a decision where the community’s voice is disregarded.

This is not a decision being made by the Governance Working Group Stewards. I clearly outlined the process in another post. FYI.

ApeChain: Request for Proposals

You may already be aware of this process, I am including here for others who may find this useful. Governance The process is GWG - Facilitators prepare a DAR package then it follow this process below: In Phase 4: The DAR package is reviewed, and if the AIP is complying with DAO-approved guidelines, it becomes a Pending AIP and moves to Phase 5. If a DAR package fails to comply with DAO-approved guidelines, it is eligible for resubmission unless in cases of violation of the law or reasonable s…

[Moonlyght]

@bigbull

This is not a decision being made by the Governance Working Group Stewards. I clearly outlined the process in another post. FYI.

Yes 100%. But don’t you guys have direct communication with the Special Council? Can’t you guys get an answer? Hopefully we’ll get more comms on that.

[Evil]

Yes understandable and no worries. This post is just about a general curiosity personally. Wanted to get views from other members here as some convos may get lost quickly over other mediums of communication.

Thanks BB

[furiousanger]

@bigbull

Also it refers back to AIP-138: The Special Council Election Process which it says it follows for Stewards. Again very clearly we have to wait till the next election cycle.

So there is clearly some issues here. Bc if we look at the apecoin guidelines it states we can replace and elect a new member ‘prior to the term’s end’
(if we are mirroring SC rules ofc).

The issue I can also see is someone may argue (if we wait until the next scheduled election), that the role has been vacant for so long that it has now become redundant. Extra bloat we do not need to fund anymore as two members do just fine.

[bigbull]

Now all the Working Groups currently have two Stewards: Marcomms, Metaverse and Governance. We (the ApeCoin DAO) also have a new Web3 Development Working Group, which passed a vote last week. All the existing Working Groups have an election in approximately 5 months for an extra Steward to join each group.

Regarding your question.

Point 2. Seems more about having a DAO wide vote to remove a current Special Council member versus replacing one that has resigned.

Of course, though it says it mimics the SC process, you can also refer at AIP-347, which came after AIP-239 - AIP-347: Enable DAO-Wide Voting for Working Group Stewards

However, this has some challenges to interpret:
1.It refers to the Ape Assembly (AA) as having the mandate if a steward steps down, but the AA no longer exists.
2. It says we need a new election, but doesn’t state a timeframe.
3. After not stating a timeframe it does refer to the term “Election Window” implying we have election windows to follow.

@Amplify

The Ape Assembly:

1. Working Group Stewards will be elected by a DAO wide vote.
2. The Ape Assembly will be formed as a committee to support and advise Working Groups.
3. Criteria to join is no longer applicable. Anyone with 1 APE is welcome to participate.
4. In the event that a Steward is removed, steps down, or is unable to continue as a Steward, for whatever reason, prior to the end of a Term, a new election must be held to fill any vacant Steward positions.
5. In the event that nominations or elections for Stewards are delayed, the nomination process and/or elections shall take place as soon as is practicable after the missed Nomination Window or missed Election Window.

The important thing for us, as Stewards to do soon is to update the Governance Working Group (GWG) Charter, so we can clarify some of these inconsistencies, so making the processes easier to understand, reducing conflict, debate and/or confusion.