Angyts, I appreciate this concern with guilds being more siloed. As more guilds can create their own newsletters we can include this as a section of the Project Updates newsletter.
Guild updates are pretty niche. We can definitely find a way to draw attention to cross guild initiatives that are fledgling projects, but guild updates are only relevant to guild members, so it doesn’t make sense to blast the whole DAO.
Mantra for newsletters (taken from Seth Godin’s permission marketing): anticipated, personal, relevant.
I think we see the purpose of the guild updates differently. You guys seems to be speaking to why a newsletter would be more engaging, while I’m worried about accountability.
Having to speak/report publicly is a massive accountability lift. It might seem like splitting hairs, but any barriers you put around this info (even small ones) can cause big changes. Over time, groups that are only internally accountable start to think the same and can drift away from the greater alignment.
I’m kinda surprised at the pushback and hope the divide is relates to the engagement/accountability difference mentioned. It’s actually easier for a guild to write a 3-5 bullet update and include it in a shared newsletter weekly than it is to produce a weekly newsletter by themselves. Easier to still to do it on Discord or Notion.
Then there’s the question of group autonomy in a decentralized org. Requiring guilds to specifically run a newsletter when there are other tools to accomplish the same thing with lower effort is an overstep in my opinion. Prediction: if this goes through, guild coordinators will start to create newsletter roles to handle this outside requirement.
Links what do you think of this suggestion for guild coordinators who don’t want to deal with the overhead? I agree that making a newsletter is too much for some guilds right now, which is why I included this. Part of the idea is to encourage guilds to make it easier for contributors in tough time zones to find work and stay updated. I think too many guilds rely on weekly meetings and CCs to provide updates, whereas finding an async method that is agnostic to time zones is necessary.
Action item for me: I’m going to reach out to guild coordinators to get their feedback—after scrolling through these comments I realize that not many coordinators have added their two bank.
For the accountability issue, you’re right in that Sidd and I were talking about engagement, not accountability. I think the accountability issue is more related to the Grants Committee and Subject Matter Expert discussion that Jake opened. Guilds remain accountable in that they are under review by GC/these new SME reps Jake is proposing…but I’m curious what you think. I like that you’re thinking about the “what ifs” of when a guild’s direction drifts further and further away from the DAO’s overall mission…but is the grants committee not a check on that? That’s a real question not rhetorical, I’m trying to figure it out
I think it’s ok. I’ll be nitpicky: one thing it’s missing is the ability to easily view all of the historical updates. (i.e. quickly review what the guild has been doing for the last x weeks). Another issues I’d be concerned about is the fact that it’s (again) mainly confined to the guild general channel instead of directed outwards to the rest of the DAO.
Around accountability: the reason why I’m speaking about accountability is because your proposal is removing a major accountability tool - the biweekly guild updates. These updates make it VERY obvious when a guild hasn’t updated anyone on their progress in the last two weeks. In fact, I recall once this season the Research Guild’s slide wasn’t filled in, and it kicked off a discussion around accountability the same day as the CC.
Now imagine I’m a malicious actor. Me and 5 compatriots create a “product guild” and give ourselves cushy roles using our social connections. We make up fake updates in our guild newsletter (or Discord pin) and truck along. When new member show up, we discourage them from engaging and because all our updates are internal, it would take a sleuthy L2 to find us out. Our scam could last a season or more…draining hundreds of thousands of BANK in the process. Do you see why outwards accountability is important? Internal accountability doesn’t make as much sense here given what we’re tracking is the treasury (a DAO-wide asset). The accountability should match the resource being consumed.
About @jakeandstake 's proposal: if I understand correctly the SME group is a way for the GUILDS to hold PROJECTS accountable, there is no additional scrutiny being given to guilds. The SMEs are elected by guilds, so they are beholden to guilds. In fact it empowers the guilds by putting them between member proposals an grants. I disagree with this approach, and it does not speak to the accountability loss you’re proposing here. It’s a different level of accountability.
The grants committee COULD hold guilds accountable, but that’s not really their role as it stands.
I disagree with this. I think your concern is valid, @angyts. And for most who have not already gravitated toward the async updates via newsletter, it seems like this is what will occur: more silos. However, in the Writers Guild, we moved to async updates in this manner, and it appears to be working well across the board. Not only are our international members able to stay abreast of what’s occurring in the Guild, our weekly meetings are now centered around discussion points that are of high value to the Guild at large. Taking this model and bringing it DAO-wide may not initially have the intended results. But with time and encouragement, this format could change the way we distribute pertinent information in a very beneficial way.
@links consider that our current CC doesn’t include this either.
This is a fair point. However, this is a problem that exists generally, with or without a CC revamp. In the current structure, a Guild could essentially write in their update that they’re on course and leave it at that. And no one would be the wiser because something was said during their time for updates. And in terms of progress, what does it mean to progress? We don’t really have guidelines in place to keep projects and guilds accountable.
To your point about creating a silo project with zero oversight, that’s fair. But ultimately, this will come to a head. We saw this during the most recent round of project proposal reviews in the Grants Committee. Projects came under fire for not delivering on their promises. Eventually, this catches up. Maybe not soon enough for some; maybe too soon for others. But at some point, projects are called to account.
Ultimately, I think you raise important points that need to be addressed DAO-wide. However, in terms of the Community Call, I don’t think maintaining the current iteration will address these issues well. Can we hold guilds accountable? And if so, how do we best go about that? Biweekly updates are naught but superficial pointers to potentially deeper issues; they’re naught much more than bandaids where deeper wounds are concerned.
This, exactly. The Grants Committee, for what it does and is, lacks any real power in bringing to account any project or guild without holding over their heads the threat of refusing funding. We still have a long way to go, but the Community Call format isn’t going to change or alter any of this.
The CC is purely about culture, and our current format fails spectacularly in this.
I think the content of the CC should address (an) issue(s) be resolved.
List problems areas to overcome which create value for the DAO membership, then include it in the community call.
For example: drifting from DAO ethos - express DAO ethos during CC
For example: DAO members unable to be DAO ambassadors because they do not know the activities in the DAO - express activities in the DAO during the CC. ( if there is value in members being to be ambassadors) etc…