This proposal emphasizes the advantages of adopting a Special Council-managed contractor model, highlighting the enhanced efficiency, reduced bureaucracy, and smaller foundation footprint it offers as a more effective alternative to working group elections.
Motivation:
The aim is to establish a lean and efficient foundation structure, moving away from conventional working group positions in favor of a more agile and adaptive model that optimizes resource allocation while minimizing bureaucracy.
Rationale:
While some DAO members may consider pursuing working groups, entrusting the Special Council with the responsibility of hiring and managing contractors offers a more advantageous approach due to the following reasons:
Compact footprint: A contractor-based model significantly reduces the foundation’s footprint, ensuring greater agility and adaptability compared to working groups.
Swift decision-making: The Special Council can make prompt decisions regarding hiring and management, bypassing the lengthy and complex election processes associated with working groups.
Expertise: The knowledgeable Special Council can identify competent contractors and guarantee effective performance, whereas working groups may have varying levels of expertise.
Decreased bureaucracy: Streamlined management of crucial positions promotes overall efficiency, while working groups can introduce more bureaucratic layers.
Specifications:
The Special Council will be granted the authority to hire and oversee contractors for essential foundation positions.
Positions include, but are not limited to:
Discord management and moderation
Discourse Forums management and moderation
Twitter social media content creation and management
Website development and maintenance
A monthly budget of 25k ApeCoin will be allocated for these purposes.
Timeline:
Following the approval of this proposal, the Special Council will commence the hiring process for essential contractor positions within two weeks.
Management of these contractors and allocation of the monthly budget will begin immediately after the hiring process concludes.
Overall Cost:
The total cost of this proposal amounts to 25k ApeCoin per month, designated for the Special Council to supervise the hiring and management of crucial foundation contractor positions. By adopting this approach, the foundation can ensure a more compact footprint and a streamlined decision-making process compared to traditional working group elections, which can be more resource-intensive and less efficient.
You’re suggesting to adopt models that produce the best and most efficient results IRL, instead of models that produce the worst results with the most conflict, confusion, corruption, cost and waste?
Great idea! Thanks for suggesting it.
Unclear what the $25k $APE / mo is exactly for, and how you came up with that figure.
From my understanding, this proposal will need to go through legal review & more. If the current working group proposal is forwarded, this will never make it, nor even be considered.
I am unsure if the approach was brought up in prior months between Special Council, the Stewards, and any legal meetings that may have occurred. Regardless, I’ve produced some basic documentation about why this could be the best path forward.
In response to why 25k, I took the numbers presented in the Governance Group Charter & the other Community Discourse Moderator proposal ideas, and I simplified here by giving a budget of 25k monthly. It actually fits really well with a prior AIP that mandates regular reporting too. Thats what I have in mind
Yes ser! So for key things like Discord & Discourse moderators, as well as some basics like a community discord, I’d like to see individuals contracted for some of these simple positions, and generally managed by special council. They can be paid simply in APE for performing the contracted services. That’s why i’d like to propose maybe a 25k apecoin a month budget.
Contract work is similar to how the newsletters are setup, and also how we wanted to approach it in most versions of the apecomms proposal. It may be the route that the stewards are currently utilizing to do their work now. I was the steward runner up, so I’m unsure of that part. Having said that, I think there’s a lot of merit to not having elections for 8-12 simple positions.
Definitely not opposed to this, as I’ve always been a strong proponent for hybridized DAO ideologies; but not at the risk of taring down whatever work and/or planning has already been put into place by Working Group Zero, as we cannot continue spinning our wheels. Keeping that in mind, once a governance working group can be established, I would imagine ideas like this could be bounced around before establishing the WGs operating underneath it.
My advice would be to include Stewards in this hiring process. As we know, many SC members have other duties within the DAO, and personal lives, who shouldn’t necessarily be responsible for the hiring process. Many are also not active members within our community (or at least publicly) who carry their own private networks; making decisions to hire outside of our most active, competent members much more efficient for them. On the flip side, Stewards are the gateway to our boots on the ground and very much aware of who is doing what—and capable of doing more.
Taking all of this into consideration, and primarily on that note, I may have just talked myself out of this idea entirely; because one of the primary reasons that makes ApeCoinDAO great, is our ability to provide equal opportunity for all members wanting to contribute, and a vote for everyone else to determine if that happens, or not.
In closing, if we were to entertain this type of structure, I suggest giving the responsibility to our current Stewards for any immediate hiring and establish a voting structure for our most active members to take on from there—which I think in essence, has already been planned.
AllCity, elections are the opposite of equal opportunity. They advantage people who can play greasy popularity contests and pandering vote-buying word games over those who are qualified and have other things to do. Elections HEAVILY favor those already in power.
That’s why the world, and politics, is the way it is and why nobody selects anyone in any important role in a business, pro sports team, gang, law firm, or whatever by an election. Especially when those voting may not be well informed or understanding of the topics or roles.
0x is correct that once the standard IRL political-style system is in place it won’t be changed. Doing things properly and avoiding systems that are proven failures through all of human history is not wheel spinning; it’s progress and setting a stellar example.
Stewards don’t necessarily have any hiring skills, nor does the SC, nor are they impartial.
A real-world hiring firm should be contracted to select a pool of candidates who meet relevant criteria - that criteria is provided by the SC based on what the role(s) require - and from that list of candidates that contracted firm can interview and hire or we could just pick at random from that pool of available talent.
THAT, and only THAT is an equal merit-based system that is proven to work.
Hey All City! I think where we differ on our approach is that I don’t think Stewards, nor an Ape Assembly, should be the hiring committee. I also don’t know what governance responsibilities would be given to an Ape Assembly. I also think that a majority of the existing stewards are likely to sweep their suggested roles. I’m doubtful that anyone excited to submit their applications will be successful.
I asked my AI assistant to write an alternative to this proposal, which then went down the complex road of adding hiring committees. It was hard to come up with favorable outcomes that eliminated electing governors. That’s why I’d like to suggest special council to manage these key positions.
I don’t see an appropriate way forward that isn’t marred by gatekeeping and “Stewards being the gateway,” which is exactly what I’d like to avoid. I dont want to issued a handbook by anyone.
Sword, the entire purpose of the handbook (housed in the Help and Resources section on Discourse) is purely educational. It’s to help people understand our existing org chart and how the entire DAO works together in tandem with the Foundation. There is often a lot of confusion, rightfully so, around how our DAO functions specifically because there is no educational content being produced by anyone because no one is being paid to produce these documents.
I’ve recently produced a fast guide to how communities can setup delegate wallets. It’s available in the help and resource section. I see the value in these things. Again, I’m generally concerned about government overreach and the idea of governors. I prefer conservative approaches. I think this idea blended w/ the community forum moderators proposal would adequately cover short terms needs without creating larger structures like the ape assembly and gov working group.
I just don’t…feel comfortable with it all. And talk of ape assembly having the ability to spin up things like ethics committees & whatever else…I personally don’t vibe with that. Everytime I ask for alternative to the gov working group method, this proposal here is what I get, and vice versa. I prefer a conservative approach.I just want to put up some sample aip templates, make them easy to fill out. It’s amazing what my AI assistant can do now too. The suggestions for greater working groups, to me is…uncertainty…It’ll be like learning a new process I feel.
If special council, or the stewards, are at least willing to look at this direction, and consider how it could be implemented with the smaller Community Forum Moderstors proposal(expand that to discord and the website obviously) that would be my ideal scenario. Again, this proposal suggestion in this thread cannot move forward to even be reviewed by legal unless the WG0 initiative is delayed or rejected by token holders. So I’d rather see some conservative approaches adopted there.
Be careful what you wish for Sword. Bringing on hiring committees and independent contractors to compete with qualified - grass roots - members of the DAO isn’t what all of this was set up for. This entire treasury was made possible because of successes that building outstanding community awarded.
Don’t get me wrong, knowing when to hire out will be critical for the DAO moving forward, and I am often the loudest in the room saying we need to bring on more professional service providers. But those selections should be made by us, the people who are actually a part of this—like you.
I’m also concerned that the gatekeeping word keeps getting thrown around. I don’t see it like this, whatsoever. That being said, do I think that the best person on paper always wins—or should? No, because different people have different levels of fight in them, or other skillsets that may make them more effective at the job and/or getting the job. The same goes for the physical world and there will never be a perfect solution. But given the current state we are in, I do not agree that we should be removing and/or making our current team compete with anyone else until at the very least, our operations goals have been met.
That being said, I do expect anyone in a position to effect hiring makes the best possible selections they can without prejudice, favourtism or reckless judgement.
The WG suggestions for elections is much like a hiring committee that reviews and votes on candidates for positions. Stewards then hire leaders to manage additional working groups. Ideas submitted to the DAO might be turned into proposals or funded directly, and this may change over time.
For example, imagine someone brings a small business proposal, like a magazine, to the DAO. If they share their idea with the working groups, there’s a chance these groups might adopt the idea themselves. This could leave the original entrepreneur, who may have already started the magazine, in a tough spot.
In such a case, the entrepreneur might be turned away. If they try to seek funding on their own, they could face questions about why the working groups didn’t handle the project. The outcome could be that the working groups decide to create their own ApeCoin-branded magazine in-house instead.
I have worked alongside the people creating the alternative for a long time. Even you all city, we spent a dozen hours in discord as you went over proposals. I think them, and you, and about 25 others, are the best people to fill many of these essential services. I think current stewards will sweep Ape Assembly elections.
Instead of doing that, I would like to present the above proposal as an alternative. I believe it will be legally compliant. And if integrated into the smaller Community Discourse Moderators proposal put forward by the WG stewards, it would then empower special council with 25k monthly apecoin to power many of us.
And truly, I’m fine w/ sending a one page simple proposal, without all the details written. I trust them to work w/ legal and run a tight ship. SC elections happen every 6 months, and some of them are very community facing. It’s not hard to talk w/ SC. This is compatible with another AIP for regular foundation reporting.
Maybe I’ve misinterprated some of this. Are you proposing a third party hiring committee or creating one from within?
For example, imagine someone brings a small business proposal, like a magazine, to the DAO. If they share their idea with the working groups, there’s a chance these groups might adopt the idea themselves. This could leave the original entrepreneur, who may have already started the magazine, in a tough spot.
^^ This is actually a concern I raised myself… And even though I don’t believe that it would be a problem with the current group, it’s definitely something that should have some sort of policy in place to protect authors.
I dont want to issued a handbook by anyone.
This feels like madness fam. Operational and/or governance structures are like bylaws. These need to be rigid and leave no room for misinterpretation with readily available written frameworks for participants to read, and understand. Think of it like an FAQ but more granular.
I think it would be better for a Special Council to manage this issue with a simple one-page proposal. We already have accountability measures in place, such as regular town halls and elections every six months, and even budget reporting through an addtl aip.
I’m not happy with how authors have been treated recently, as they’re mostly introduced to the concept of “working groups.” They’re encouraged to share their ideas in detail but receive little support in writing proposals. Providing templates could be helpful.
There are questions of who handles legal ownership of things like the discord. In trying to solve for that, its expanded greatly. I dont like the results and suggested path put forward by the WG stewards, and request that a conservative approach be considered by stewards and SC.
When looking over a pool of applicants, it’s appropriate to call it an “election” when it is large enough, and equally appropriate to call it a “hiring committee” when it is small enough. They are fundamentally the same thing. An election with 2 candidates with an electorate of 5 people is still the same concept as running an election with 20 candidates and an electorate of 100k people. It’s still an election/vote/hiring decision being made by more than 1 person.
This is not true, or present anywhere in the proposal. Stewards do not hire “leaders” or other stewards of other working groups.
I don’t know if this is a problem?
I agree with you this is a possibility, no matter how small. I don’t know how anyone can possibly solve for intellectual property theft at this scale. Besides, if a Steward(s) of a Working Group(s) ever allowed this to happen, don’t you think we would throw up a Process Proposal to Remove and Replace the Steward or at the very least, not reelect them in 6 months?
This is the misunderstanding, I think. “Empower the SC” = Empower the APE Foundation. Do we really think the Foundation is lacking for power or oversight and needs more of it? The Special Council already has a discretionary budget they can use to pay for service providers if they have to, the whole point is they don’t have to because we’re proposing an alternative in the form of Working Groups.
Again, the whole point of all of this is to further decentralize and operationalize the DAO away from the Foundation and into the hands of the community.
Sword, there are templates available. And although I completely agree that there needs to be far more guidance in place for Discourse, we are issuing the equivielent of money to people to essentially operate businesses producing products and/or services. At some point candidates need to stand on their own feet with this stuff. I would also suggest that being able to complete these requirements can be viewed as somewhat of a stress test.
All of that being said, I have talked about potentially opening discussions with Stewards about the possibility of creating a mentorship program for anyone writing their first AIP to be paired with others who have… Might help.
Hi @AllCityBAYC, providing templates isn’t always easy. I recall sending you several proposal examples to help you with your own. I’ve been doing this for many people in the community for quite some time and continue to do so. As one of the few writers in the Help & Resources section and having high user stats, I feel like I shouldn’t need to mention this here.
@Amplify Ser, I appreciate your idea and thread, and I understand it’s now heading to a snapshot vote. I’d like to propose a streamlined approach in this discussion. I won’t go into the details of the ever-changing other thread, but I’ve reviewed it and identified issues with the proposed structure.
I have extensive experience and an AI assistant that has found many flaws in the other suggested structure. I’d like to see this alternative approach evaluated.
The community has delved deep into the foundation and its mechanics. I’m suggesting a simple, legally compliant solution: a one-page proposal granting the Special Council more authority. This would prevent working group overreach and promote a thriving proposal culture. Token holders might enjoy reviewing grant requests, making the process more enjoyable without working groups.
I’m a believer in digital governance and rights, and I’m not a fan of the current proposal. I think my suggestion deserves consideration, legal review, and due process. Even if accepted as a simple one-page proposal, the Special Council and foundation can still make changes as needed.
The current Steward election model hasn’t been well-received, and many candidates haven’t engaged much since. I don’t think people enjoyed the WG0 Steward election or would enjoy the Ape Assembly elections, which could be dominated by existing stewards. Let’s consider an alternative approach from the beginning.
Thank you @AllCityBAYC The WG0 discord could use an overhaul too. Different discussions but quick fixes.I’m around to hop onto discord calls or w/e quite often. You know I’m around. Its easy to hop into VC
