The purpose of this document is to build a structure that collects all initiatives and work towards a DAO v2. This includes an overview of coming and already conducted retros by the GD. We hope it makes the process easy to follow, transparent and inclusive.
Abbreviations
GD Governance Department
g/d Guilds and Departments
PMG The PM Guild
Project Plan
Will follow the Double Diamond approach
Include dates and a timeline
Is flexible, we can always adjust the course
Describes end product for each activity
Must not be too ambitious, rather focus on realism
Phase 1: “What do we want to do”
Discover what is important for the BDAO members by:
The DAO-wide retrospective (all bDAO members were invited) is the starting point for phase 1. More information is available [GD call February 19th GD weekly sync (notion.site)]
Discussions and/or retrospectives within guilds and departments should be organized through the guild/department (g/d) coordinators.
Use the GD call Feb 19th as a starting point for discussion but add topics as needed
Discussions in g/d should be organized however they wish (during weekly meetings or async on Figjam/other solutions) but the output should follow the same format and due date.
Members that don’t fall into any g/d can fill in their thoughts as individuals
In-depth interviews with some members. [high risk due to work-load]
This will require time and effort and might cost more than the value it returns. The selection of members for interviews should include
Geographical affiliation
Guild and departments
Activity level (difficult to “measure” but could be guest pass, L1, L2, etc)
More?
Interviews should follow a semi-structured approach (same line of open-ended questions allowing for free speech). The questions should be developed from the GD retros and g/d discussions.
Interviews will only be conducted if the GD and PMG see the need and value exceed the costs. g/d are welcome to request and argument for the value (and to participate in the interviewing process)
All the data collected from the above processes needs to be gathered in a standardized format to make the compilation a realistic task to do
Narrow down what the bDAO members want
GD, PMG, and other interested bDAO members should volunteer to read the compilation, summarize, and prepare the text for workshops in the GD.
The GD should develop statements as “bDAO is …”[or in some way make this part tangible]
Test what statements fit best using a DAO-wide survey
Again this might take some time so a deadline is crucial
The survey should [open for suggestions] be built by the following structure
Short introduction
Statements followed by a scale “fully disagree” 1 - 5 “fully agree”, and a question “this statement is important to me” “fully disagree” 1 - 5 “fully agree”
This last question measures the importance of the statement. Example: have you ever
Phase 2: “How do we do it” [will come later]
Ideate potential solutions that will give bDAO members what they have said they want
Include different approaches as described in phase 1
Narrow to a few solutions
Phase 2 might be the beginning of a new DAO
Practical
The GD have discussed what type of information it wants from g/d, this follows the meeting notes from GD call on February 19th.
These should be topics for discussion. The g/d can decide whether they want to discuss it async or during a meeting(s)
Answers should follow a standardized format so it’s easy to connect the replies to the questions
Timeline
Open for discussion and there might be delays along the way
We should be able to shorten the timeline if a smaller group is given mandate to make decisions as we move forward
The timeline does not include planning for phase 2, this will go in parallel (by PMG)
The timeline does not include an evaluation of the process as we move forward but this should be a part of the process (should always have room for discussions like “does this work”, “should we change something”)
I truly respect what you guys at the GD are doing. However, what I see here is a lengthy proposal that commits to nothing - which is precisely symptomatic of everything that’s wrong with the DAO.
The timeline suggest 8 weeks just to conduct a survey, without committing to making any decisions or actions. Plus, even before starting, it already states the assumption that this will be too much work and likely won’t happen on time but that’s okay.
I don’t think the DAO can afford this, in order to survive. We’re bleeding and losing any of the remaining momentum we have. I’ve seen way too many DAOs die in limbo out of lack of accountability and lack of strong decision making.
I suggest we elect an interim Mayor who will be tasked to work together with the guilds to orchestrate a turn around. The Mayor should be compensated in a heavy BANK allocation, subject to meeting pre-defined milestones by given dates (next 3 months, next 6 months, next 1 year). Think about this as Elon’s old compensation plan at Tesla.
This has been sucessfully done at FWB, and it doesn’t mean the end of decentralization, it just means we move forward and don’t die.
We have had different commissions (GSE, whatever else?) trying to re-orchestrated governance for the past 2 years to no avail, we don’t need more of open-ended no-accountability surveying.
Apologies for sounding harsh, but this is what needs to be said. Happy to make a separate thread to discuss this proposal.
Thanks for your input! What you suggest have proven very effective in many instances. What I like about what you’re saying (between the lines) is that DAOs are nothing more than a gathering of people just in a new wrapping. And this new wrapping is in experimental mode right now so yes many attempts at making it work will not succeed.
No worries about sounding harsh I appreciate your thoughts.
You ask for more commitment in the proposal. I would like to hear what that looks like to you.
I’m of course blinded by my own writing so it would be great to learn what could make the proposal into a realistic one that bDAO members outside of the GD will find trustworthy.
And I’d like to know how you would like to contribute going forward.
The situation at mo is triage … what to keep, what to fund to breakeven, and alas what to chop.
you can apply a forcing function by saying (if i was elected dictator for a week)
any guild/dept not responding to PM diktat will assume to be on the chop list.
Hopefully fear will convince some to put pedal to the metal to get something into the diamond (if only a placeholder).
Having worked at early stage startup which got swiped by a fall in oil prices, I can tell you some of the passive-aggressive fear responses and counters (after mentoring at Singapore’s premier accelerator i learnt a lot)
analysis-paralysis forcing may either oversimplify the need for thorough consideration in complex situations or the evil aspect it can also be used to control the direction of progress if it is unfavorable or if the outcome may be unpleasant
Dive deep - The exact opposite of “Analysis - Paralysis”, depts want you to continue the analysis because you haven’t reported what they wanted. (not to be chopped)
Moving discussions “offline” might seem like a way to streamline comms but it can also be a tactic to avoid transparency or accountability. In most cases, such offline discussions never happen, so the item is completely ignored. Important conversations should be had openly to ensure everyone is on the same page.
Wallflower - saying “I’m listening” can be a hollow gesture when not followed by genuine understanding and action. Also used as a tactic to say, I’m not going to act on this, though I know it.
Take the lead - opp of wallflower == Premature Leadership. Use this to shoo-away responsibility by proactively asking someone else to take the lead or keep it within their fold by encouraging one of their guys to take the lead. encouraging someone to “take the lead” can be beneficial, but it may also pressure individuals into roles or responsibilities they are not ready for.
to ground people i suggest that to get past the fear zone we need to empathise with pain, esp those who’ve already jumped/left.
Thanks @Oakfloors. Do appreciate your understanding.
What I’m saying is results first, process second. Not the other way around.
We need to start with a deadline and a clear set of deliverables. Eg. -
By Apr 30th we will decide if Bankless mission stays the same or it pivots
By May 31th we decide on strategy + new KPIs for the upcoming Season
By Jun 30th restructuring and new budget complete, only guilds and roles that are directly contributing to the new KPIs get funding (agreeing with @drllau here)
This is an oversimplified example but you get the idea. Start with deliverables and then figure out how to muster the resources to make it happen. This will require to mobilize and coordinate people from across guilds, hence I’m suggesting we need to appoint an overarching authority like a Mayor.
I think starting with how much resources we have available within one specific guild like the GD and working back from that is a mistake. There should be way more urgency in what needs to be done and we have other guilds we can mobilize - they just need to be working in accord, which they are not atm (no one’s fault, we just lack the structural apparatus).
The Mayor will be accountable for meeting the deadlines, have the authority to enforce that all guilds are working on this as their main priority, and make sure we keep rowing forward, which atm we are not.
This makes sense and shows that the proposal lacks context. This proposal focuses on the inclusion of bDAO members in the process we’re in. There’s been a lack of engagement (for a while) and the GD has taken the lead in restructuring bDAO. The challenge has been inclusion in the process.
That’s the origin so what you’re looking for ie. a clear set of deliverables for bDAO as a whole will not find its place in this proposal. Not saying it couldn’t be valuable to include this somewhere.
I personally disagree with this approach. This could be a personal preference but deciding on results before we know what we want could be an equally high (project) risk as analysis-paralysis discussed by drllau above. The fact as of today is that only a small group of bDAO participates in the discussion. A “mayor” could make a ton of decisions with or without the consensus of the members and meet KPIs that show results but for whom?
The other side is what we have now. GD is doing its best to carve a new way but with little response/participation from members. I guess this proposal is trying to facilitate an “opt in” option for members who want to and we can’t force the others.
I don’t think saying we will have a mission, vision, strategy, and KPIs by X date is ‘deciding on results before we know what we want.’ It’s just committing to decisions being made. If we cannot commit to deciding on those things, there’s really nothing left.
Agreed we can’t force ppl to participate. Just saying whoever doesn’t will remain de-funded. And a mayor will have the powers to internally recruit and compensate ppl who do contribute. Ofc, token holders still need to approve each one of these deliverables set out by the mayor and their team. So this won’t be a dictatorship.
agree on this, we need to set deliverables and deadlines, and then structure the process how to reach both
it is good that there is an initiative to get some work done, but plan lacks clear KPI’s
nevertheless, this plan is best what we have at the moment, so maybe you can adjust it a bit
Thanks for the inputs @mgoesdistance and @cyclist. The more people participating the better.
I agree that saying we will have a mission, vision etc. by a certain date is not “deciding on results” if we have agreed to pursue BanklessDAO. The GD minutes from February 19th (Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.) indicate that it’s not necessarily what we’re working towards.
So I’d like to make that decision before working on mission, vision etc.
Current guild leaders may not have capacity or skills to respond, but future leaders may do. The archive can tell them what was tried and what was successful, and what wasn’t. Also where any useful content resources are.
Consider the example of great leaders. Mandela, Tutu, King, Gandhi. The “inclusion” came because folk signed up to the policies suggested, and those policies were delivered on. And there was appropriate transparency and accountability.
Most folk don’t want to lead, but they do want to trust in their leaders, and have their occasional say.
Rotating leadership is always prone to having less effective leaders after more effective leaders. Politics shows us this time and again.
I think perhaps what is needed here is an interim spell of leadership as @mgoesdistance suggests, moderated by appropriate transparency and accountability checks and balances, and time delimited.
I think this is a good idea, @mgoesdistance , and agree this needs some urgency.
It needs a proposal of its own, and proper explanation. Asking guild leaders first, and then asking them to promote this in their guilds. It will need effective use of Discord, since numbers viewing here in Discourse are very limited.
Maybe the mayor needs a mayoral council for accountability, in the same way a charity CEO has a board where they are held accountable.
You might also consider DAO Punks, who I understood (?) are a successful offshoot of Bankless, and now offering grants of their own. We can learn some lessons there, and importing an NFT mentality to bDAO could be very fruitful, I feel.
There’s an age old problem of exclusivity even with the small group. Sometimes, people can feel very intimidated if they want to make decisions by the small group that tends to be in those governance calls.
I don’t suppose it’s at the fault of anyone (the group or the person who feels like they would not fit in)
I really like this idea PM guild taking the initiative and conductive DAO wide research and based on the input, come up informed suggestions / proposals.
It’s community inclusive, enables collective input, decentralizes decision-making or better said - coming up with ideas and suggestion on the way forward.
Any clue as to the distribution @Oakfloors (rather than spectrum) … .eg
the LHS suggests a soft-fork (divorce with alimony) whereas RHS is more a negotiated trial separation (distinct IP but cross-licensing). Here you need to poll/sample the missing portion which are people who have already left (rage-quit or apathetic-liedown) and those within HQ with personal opinion which may not necessarily be the same as official position.
