bDIP 04 : Departments

Was not a modification of the constitution.

That wording is a draft right now, but at some point we will be bringing the whole new Constitution draft to the community for feedback.
I guess what I was trying to ā€˜say without sayingā€™ was that proceeding with this bDIP and the text herein will somewhat complicate the concurrent attempt at clarifying and simplifying the Constitution language.

Iā€™m not sure exactly how best to proceed, but Iā€™m guessing we (Constitution working group) would either immediately introduce the suggested new language over the top as part of the whole (negating this effort), or weā€™d feel compelled to keep it because it literally just passed and therefore it will be very different to the draft language we have about guilds and projects.

Iā€™m completely on board with ensuring the Constitution includes departments as DAO org units, but I feel the work is being done in the broader effort and it would be best to ā€˜retireā€™ this bDIP rather than proceeding to a Snapshot vote.

Hey @thinkDecade, you defined this as a major change to the constitution.

Could you share why you think that?

I was not sure whether it was major or minor but I figured since it was introducing a new org unit and the process involved in creating it. It was pretty heavy.

but now that there are more clarity on what qualifies as major and minor. I reckon this is a minor patch.

Instead of ā€œsunsetā€, I rather see it as ā€œrolled upā€ into the ā€œreviewed constitutionā€. And the snapshot of the reviewed constitution will ratify the snapshot of this bDIP.

Iā€™m not sure I understandā€¦ are you saying that the Constitution work group should continue with the wording weā€™'ve suggested:

Departments are the essential operational units of BanklessDAO. Within a Department there may be several related work streams. New Departments may be created and seek funding via the proposal framework.

because that is what you would take to Snapshot for this bDIP as well?

1 Like

Yes - the constitution work group should proceed with the suggested changes.

  1. no need for snapshot for bDIP04 like you suggested.
  2. use the new/improved wording the CWG came up with.

hopefully this makes things clearer.

1 Like

That is clear and very collaborative of you, thank you! :boom:

1 Like

Thanks for making improvements. huge s/o to the Constitution Work Group ( CWG )

4 Likes

So based on this convo, @thinkDecade and @Trewkat we are good to omit this from going to snapshot?

I was going to put it up, but if we are good Iā€™ll hold on this.
(Trying to format this into the bdip format is toughā€¦)

My understanding is that thinkDecade agrees the text we have drafted for the Constitution will suffice- and there will be opportunities to comment on that, so this doesnā€™t need to proceed.

Yeah @Icedcool, what @Trewkat said. :smiley:

1 Like