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

Governance
21

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
22

I guess it’s clear that ‘No, but Support the direction and needs improvement’ is a no to this proposal. But is willing to start the discussion of updating the constitution.

Yep, you are right. That won’t serve the purpose of this post. i.e not updating the constitution after we have a bunch of bDIPs passed
@Bananachain I encourage you to read the reply above yours, which I have given to @homie [bDIP-N]: Expanding the Mandate of Governance Department - #20 by 0xbaer

23

Hi Baer, thanks for tagging me. This actually notified me via email so it certainly got my attention. I didn’t vote yet and trying to make sure i’m really intentional with it. Although from the first look, I actually think this might be a good idea. However, can you please provide an explanation for this proposal like I’m a 5 year old? I’m wondering why people are voting no and what are the possible blockers here. Maybe something around the format of: PROBLEMS > BLOCKERS > PROPOSED SOLUTION? And what happens if everything stays as is.

I currently have a hormonal migraine due to lady week coming so I can’t really process information well, I wish it was easier to read from the original post. Thanks for your patience and looking forward for more clarification.

1 Like
24

Thank you for your efforts to clarify this process and the associated responsibilities. I’m sorry your tags have gone unanswered up to this point and I appreciate you hopping on the Ops call this past week to remind us of this issue.

While there were no strong concerns raised on the call regarding Ops taking on this responsibility, I’ll follow-up in #ops-governance to prompt more discussion and create a sesh poll. We’ll assess Ops’ desire and capacity to take this on and let you know the outcomes.

Let me know if you have any concerns about this approach.

Regarding some of the concerns raised about the way the Constitution references the Governance work stream/guild/department: What if Governance became a work stream under the Ops umbrella?

This would alleviate any concerns about the way the current Governance unit is reflected in the Constitution, it would grow the number of governance-minded folk in Ops, and if those within the workstream were to take up the responsibility of updating the handbook (per this proposal), it would satisfy the Ops mandate in the Constitution.

At this point, given the Governance unit is relatively new, it seems like such a shift (Governance as a workstream within Ops) would be largely semantic, it would help scope the efforts of the Governance work stream, and it would reasonably broaden the scope of the Ops Department.

2 Likes
25

@0xbaer What is the number of this bDIP itself?

26

@Sprinklesforwinners no proposal number for this one, as it’s better to give a Prop number once it reaches quorum. and gets the number of prv bDIP on snapshot.

if we don’t follow this hygiene we could find ourselves in a situation where there are multiple proposals with the same prop number, low-quality proposals take up the number and really random numbers land on snapshot.

3 Likes
27

Hey happy if Ops can set up a workstream which updates the constitution- not concerned about who owns the workstream; instead, the constitution gets updated.
That being said, DoG (@ernest_of_gaia) already tracks proposals from across the DAO from a very early stage till the forum/snapshot.

the Expected outcome form this proposal is

  1. bring everything under one roof if this ever reaches Quorum,
    or
  2. enable Ops to launch this Workstream and work closely with DoG and ensure that everything is up to date
1 Like
28

Thank you. That makes sense! Could the bDIP template reflect that?

29

It needs a bDIP and probably 51 votes, so I would differ and keep this as an unwritten rule and or as governance best practices and hygiene.

30

Closing down this proposal amid the governance changes in the DAO.

1 Like