4-Month Season Proposal: SuperSeason Revisions

This is an edit of the Super Season proposal to make a four-month season for Season 4 rather than a three or six-month season. Based on discussions in the #seasons channel and feedback from many contributors, a four-month season (16-weeks) seems to be a happy medium.

The schedule of a 16-week season would be:

Break week: April 4-8

Season 4 Start: April 18

Founding Day/One Year Anniversary: May 4

Permissionless: May 17-19

Break Week: August 8-12

Season 5 Start: August 15-19

For reasoning on why I’m proposing a longer season, I refer you to the original Super Season post.

Ways to keep project alignment and meet goals during a 33% longer season:

  • Retrospectives performed by the PM team
  • GSE check-ins with coordinators and core contributors
  • Reporting of key project and guild metrics and KPIs in the Gearing Up newsletter
  • Yes to a four-month season
  • No to a four-month season

0 voters

1 Like

I voted yes despite preferring a 3-month season for accountability reasons…so lemme share some thoughts on accountability:

  • The only group that individual projects/guilds are accountable to are the ones that fund them. In this case, the grants committee and the banklessDAO multisig holders should be holding projects and guilds responsible, respectively.
  • Regularly reporting is good, but TBH the gearing up newsletter doesn’t feel like the right channel to me after seeing it work for 3 months
  • GSE seems to be a catch-all for problems in the DAO. There’s no guarantee they will work on accountability. Besides, it’s the GC and bDAO multi-sig holders who have the real power to hold projects/guilds accountable.
    • Ditto for PM team - they have no authority over projects/guilds
3 Likes

@samanthaj Thank you for writing this up.

I’m unsure there is a perfect timeframe for a season’s length. Some of us will have different thoughts as to shorter or longer for different reasons.

Going back to the six-month timeframe from the original proposal, I thought it was a good thing. However, after seeing others’ thoughts, I changed my mind.

As bDAO matures, it will find that ‘happy medium’ on this issue and others. I believe this is a good place to settle for now and see how it goes.

1 Like

Depending on what people think about a 4 month season in general, I’m thinking it might be better to start it for season 5 in an attempt to avoid rushing to change guild and project operations to fit the new time frame which would start in a month. Unless people think that is enough time to reframe the approach.

Another thing that crossed my mind is GSE timeframe was set to 3 months during season 4. So payment was based on 3 months. If we keep the deadline to end of season 4 to present the plan, that gives GSEs 4 months instead of 3. This could be good to give more time or bad by removing urgency. It also locks up peoples commitments for an extra month without an extra month of pay. Now of course the GSE deadline could still be 3 months instead of 4 even with a 4 month season. Just adding more things to think about.

Edit - I voted yes to 4 month season but not to start in season 4. I think a season 5 start would be better

4 Likes

Do you mean for the break week to be April 8-15th?

Then the official start to be the 18th?

Thank you for this suggestion. I voted yes on this experiment. I was wondering if there are any suggestions to A/B test 3 vs. 4 month seasons?

An incremental move is appealing! Maybe we make it to 6mo eventually. Ultimately agree with moving to lengthen the time between grant requests as it can be fairly time consuming (side note: I’m toying with the notion of “auto-renew with veto” as a mechanism that could alleviate this as well).

Can you share any math around budget changes? I suppose it all trends proportionally to time in most cases, but I wonder if there are any outliers we are missing.

Most roles would need to be modified across Guilds etc; this is an interesting way to specifically word role salary to reflect in context to seasonal length. For example, a Guild Organizer role is paid by rate * length rather than a static amount. That way, in the future if we change the length again, role program text does not need to be modified AND budget can be easily calculated.

Per @ManuelMaccou point about delaying until next season since S4 is closing in fast, I can see this being true. This post only has 15 votes so far, so we would need to step on the mf gas to solidify this change before the S4 spec is publicized. My gut says we probably missed the boat since this Friday would be the earliest day to launch a full scale notice (and wait a week) which is basically 2 weeks from now to cement modification to everyones budgets in the middle of them writing budgets.

TL;DR

  • 4 month is lit
  • it’s probably too late to squeeze this in before S4

Thanks for putting this together :pray:

1 Like

The common ground that resonates with me here is that we’re all trying to move bDAO towards financial sustainability and seem to be in agreement that we’re not tracking in that direction.

The argument that the “budgeting overhead” is the problem here doesn’t really land with my personal experience at bDAO and elsewhere. The value of the process is not in the budget that come out of it, but in the planning process that leads into it and in the intentional reflection point that allows bDAO to revisit how it allocates its funds going forward.
Inertia is a very powerful force, so I view this 4x/year “disruptions” as something rather valuable.

There is no perfect system. Every system can be gamed (blindly copy-pasting last season’s budget).
And no system lives in isolation. The effectiveness of one system is impacted by the effectiveness of other systems (in this case, the quality of the decisions made by the grants committee, for example).

Extending the seasons will not make the system less game-able, but it will result in incorrect decisions having longer/larger effects, with less opportunities to course-correct, further exasperating the downward spiral.

Let’s instead focus on increasing the value from the agility that the current seasons’ length enables.

3 Likes

We had a very productive retrospective for daodash led by @links

I’d be in favor of a longer season after the proposed project alignment mechanisms, namely retrospective, GSE check-ins and KPI reportings are implemented and running smoothly.

2 Likes

I voted yes for the super season and I can see the advantages, but Manual made a great point about the GSE’s and I feel that we should let this one ride until S5. After gathering a soft consensus here I feel we should bring this to Snapshot and implement after S4. We are in the process of aggregating information for the S4 temp check now named the Season 4 Community Vote. We should have this up for the community by April 7th/8th.