[bDIP-N]: Expanding the Mandate of Governance Department

If there’s no appetite than how is increasing the mandate going to work?

Surely we need appetite and desire to increase the mandate.

1 Like

“BDAo Governance Workstream” is the name of the workstream that you can use instead of department.

While the daostewards created the workstream it is it’s own workstream now

That’s why this proposal is asking to enable the Governance Dept to do this

1 Like

@ernest_of_gaia i dint get you; the Governance dept is a non-funded ‘Guild’ according to the constitution. And there isn’t any BDAo Governance Workstream anymore

To everyone who voted no, please add your rational on why? and any possible alternative to the proposal!

1 Like

@ernest_of_gaia i dint get you; the Governance dept is a non-funded ‘Guild’ according to the constitution. And there isn’t any BDAo Governance Workstream anymore

I’m not sure that’s the case. Can you quote the part of the constitution you’re referring to because ‘ctrl + f’ search results aren’t finding that definition: bankless-dao-constitution/bdao-constitution.md at main · BanklessDAO/bankless-dao-constitution · GitHub

Also a department and a guild are supposed to be mutually exclusive so calling this “dept is a non-funded ‘Guild’” isn’t how that’s supposed to work as it effects how it would be funded.

Is this the Governance Dept you are referring to: [V2] Establish and fund a Governance Department

Did it actually get funded by grants? Haven’t followed if that went through or not. If the department is formed that does make sense to make that small change to the handbook/constitution. But only if that dept. is actually formed to replace the ops workstream. There seems to be confusion about whether that workstream still exists or not reading the above comments.

1 Like

I still don’t quite follow because the Ops Guild is funded. Is the proposed governance department I linked to the one you are referencing in your proposed change in the bDIP? I’m sure they will get funding based on the votes but if they haven’t yet this change should wait until the department is established.

Just need to update it to reference the governance workstream and not the department

1 Like

it’s a non funded workstream not a guild. There is a workstream, we have updated the Discord Governance category with channel titles that reflect the purpose of the workstream. we are this season unfunded because we put up a proposal, that to my knowledge has not been ratified due to the GC votes 4 abstain, 1 no, 1 yes.

1 Like

folks need to know too, it is not ops dept that handles the updates, its solely Iced Cool, as a member of the Ops Dept. This is quite a blocker to actually getting updates going in the first place


@ernest_of_gaia is a hard naming choice for sure! if we follow the constitution word by word, Governance ‘workstream’ is a guild,

Can you point to the text in the constitution that states that and the proposal where we agreed to sustantiate as a guild. A guild has totally different goals, objectives and needs. By default it would be an unfunded project not a guild

What you commented is not what your proposing above

@activate-glacier what an I missing? Everything except the final updation of the handbook is already happening under one roof, so the impact of this proposal is having everything under ‘Gov Dept’. Can allso add.

‘governance department takes owner of the version control process of the Constitution and Handbook’ to the impact section

I’m being nitpicky. But this spoke to me for a moment.

Why no flat out no?


it’s No, but there are other options like knocking Ops door and asking them to do it or go to GC and ask to cut funding to the entire dao until the constitution is updated.

Ah, indeed. Thanks :innocent:

I have to tagged Ops multiple times, but tagging them here to @raybankless.eth @ernest_of_gaia @0xZFi.eth @chunz @AboveAverageJoe @brianl @Steff

1 Like

Its a bit of a farace to offer these two options “YES”, or “NO but I support the direction…”, which sound more like a qualified YES. How about just an unconditional NO for people who actually mean NO without any qualification, or does this not server the purpose of its authors? This alone is ground enough to disqualify this post.

1 Like