How Should We Organize Members?

[hirokennelly]

The tlBANK vote to check sentiment on whether the DAO should reorganize under the same org units (Guilds, Departments, and Projects), working groups, or start over with a blank organizational slate was an interesting vote.

Snapshot

While there were NO votes to maintain the status quo, tlBANK voters were nearly evenly split on whether to form working groups or begin anew with no org containers whatsoever.

This post is to get feedback on this vote, and to hear from you to understand the reasoning behind wanting one or the other.

Cheers frens.

[hirokennelly]

I’m going to show my hand here, and say that I deeply believe we need to start fresh, as I’m afraid that the extractive entrenchment within the current org units will attempt the same within working groups, preventing productive reorganization.

We also don’t know what we’re going to be doing going forward, and there are too many unknowns to begin in working groups. IMO we start fresh, set a purpose, and start building. But we don’t know what we need to build until we have our purpose. For example, if we become a home for DAO contributors and content, that’s one set of working groups. If we focus on IRL vibes, that’s a whole different set.

Finally, working groups, like any org units, are a form of hierarchy. While we are past the illusions of flat organizations, there is no reason to begin with hierarchy (perhaps except to cull in DAO-owned assets during the reorg).

Purpose first, hierarchy later.

[anafante]

I agree with Hiro, before knowing how we will organize, we first have to figure out what are we going to do moving forward.

It may be helpful to have a temporary remunerated work stream to define this. Or we could also just gather the current working groups and choose a misión and vision. It will probably take several weeks. Weekly CC could be repurposed to work on this, which is I believe what has been happening anyway. Only we would have a clear output from these gatherings.

Nación Bankless continues working to make this world more Bankless, or actually more web3 friendly, and I see the team stronger and more committed than ever before. So we look forward to rebuilding the DAO!

[Jengajojo]

Workstreams in any form become fiefdoms, I support making a fresh start. If anything focus on ‘business units’/entities who are already self-sustainable to join the DAO and contribute in exchange for benefits/perks not related to token transfers.

[coffee-crusher]

I believe that starting fresh is the only way to go. Trying to rebuild with former structures (i.e. similar analogy to remodeling a house, or stripping it down to just the foundation), I believe makes it harder to rebuild our new organization with current structures that will be less flexible.

[Eren]

I agree with Hiro, we can start fresh
But also try to keep the good things/processes that are currently in place in mind.

[links]

I also believe we should start fresh. TBH I don’t even understand what “workstream” organization really means.

The more formal organization, the more tendance towards bureaucracy and “turf”. BanklessDAO was good at creating sub-units, but terrible at destroying them. We need a new paradigm for how we operate if we are going to take these two things into account.

In general I think we should aim for a “cellular” organization. Groups who can act on their own, but have ties to each other for reasons. The reasons have yet to be defined, so we can’t really create an org structure yet.

[CryptoReuMD]

Fresh Start. As a Lettuce. IMO i think that workstream works as a flywheel when we are on air, but now as i read and i know more it’s the best to rebirth from the ashes. From Zero to Hero.

[innov8tor3]

@links

BanklessDAO was good at creating sub-units, but terrible at destroying them.

This is the heart of the problem, and it can only be solved by introducing elements of critical sustainability. Does any bDAO group - forget what arbitrary names we give them - have the means to continue unsupported, after a trial period of set up? If so, then they themselves can choose to provide healthy support to a related community or public goods project. Cells each need to have a medium term focus a) on gaining head above water sustainability status and b) longer term on providing grants to newer weaker link connection projects. If at least the first step can’t be achieved, that group or sub group need to face a much more robust parking process supported by the wider community.

Bankless already had a cellular structure, and still does for the moment in Discord. But the key point is that unproductive cells were not managed effectively. So an ineffective cell started to kill the parent cell. Dying cells need to be allowed to enter homeostasis without terminally affecting the parent host, perhaps until a better medicine can be found, by different personnel.

Cell leaders need to accept these responsibilities, be keen to move towards sustainability, be asked to report “to the wider community” on such matters, for community and self education purposes, and have a healthy project culling or cell pausing practice. This still doesn’t need to be classically hierarchical, @hirokennelly , given members get sufficient transparency and opportunities to vote, even if that’s more local rather than for the wider bDAO community. Servant leadership is a known thing, Bankless can demonstrate this, and I believe have done so on many occasions. FYI, I haven’t seen it much mentioned, but servant leaders invert structures, and consider themselves at the bottom, supporting all those “above them”.

Also, Hiro, two schools of thought on development and change. Top down and bottom up. Which are we best using for the wider links proposal?

Cell leaders also need to bring on apprentices, together with any successful healthy venture wanting to leave bDAO for “independence”, committing to providing a viable succession and leadership plan for the group left behind. I believe there also needs to be Retrospective or reverse or backwards funding from exit groups, because an exit from a parent can be extractive and depleting to parent function, especially on personnel, and the parent group contribution needs to be properly recognised and even supported by the child group.

We may have an aversion to the term leader, with the centralising implications, but organisations typically can’t and don’t work without coordination, and typically that’s still a form of centralisation, even if roles are cycled frequently. That tension exists in any DAO.

I believe leadership should include the cultivation of skills, including recruiting new talent, and that all folk wanting to enter at grassroots should also have access points, but that’s maybe a different or later discussion.

If bDAO doesn’t take these sustainability issues on and provide robust solutions, then it doesn’t matter what format or language is adopted, because the same problems will continue.

I want to apologise to some where I have used overly robust and direct language previously, or continue to do so. I want to contribute, and I have believed in Bankless up to now. But Bankless needs to start making better decisions, starting here. We are where we are, but hopefully what I’m seeing is a new beginning. Only time will tell.

Thanks for listening, a bit ranty, sorry, but then passion matters, right?

And thanks to @links for continuing to bring passion and thought to Bankless. It means I can continue hoping for the best.

[homie]

A quick question that your response made me think of.

(And perhaps why it’s good to just start fresh)

Was one of the ideal goals of bDAO having groups that could be connected at the cellular level, while being able to function on their own?

If so, could you take bits and pieces from that idea, decipher what was wrong, and build from there?

It seems like like a lot if these options at root are saying the same thing. Guild were a bit less autonomous but still in a sense similar to workstreams, and the cellular organizations, albeit less so, still hold some similarities in function.

Above all else, what a fascinating discussion on new organizational paradigms ( what a strange grouping of words I just said)

I wonder if one group with branches would work for now. Considering a lot of the potential workstreams may have splintered off a touch.