Proposing the idea of Term Limits for Role Holders

Maybe there is a need of Apprentice role for each role

That would be an option but how would that work in reality in our anon and decentralized work environment? All meetings and documents are already public and if you don’t hold an apprentice role you you might even be at a disadvantage in future elections.

Hi Homie,

This is an interesting one. And compliments on investing your time on thinking through how bDAO could be made better.

I haven’t voted yet. I have some apprehensions and would be keen to see what everyone in this discussion thinks about it

  • Regarding the assumption that a term limit will motivate people more. At the same time I am apprehensive of the opposite. There will be ~50% role holders in their final (second term) with low external motivators. Even is some of them drop their performance, it can be detrimental for the DAO

  • We are assuming there is an large supply of good talent. May not always be the case, especially in a slow crypto market

  • bDAO does not have good documentation of processes. In such cases, there is tacit knowledge with role holders (what works and what does not work, best practices, etc). Some part of this is likely to get lost each time a person moves out. Such a loss is worth it, if we have a strong reason to bring in a new person, we should carefully weigh the pros and cons

  • As it has been pointed out above, many roles require specialized knowledge. We are also effectively killing long term thinking by role holders

  • bDAO is an amazingly welcoming and warm community. I personally do not foresee that a new person would have apprehensions standing in an election against a long term role holder

  • A great thing about bDAO is that there is no limited supply of roles. Those who have motivation can create a lot of work for themselves.

  • If the apprehension is on motivation levels and performance of incumbents. The solution may be a stronger reporting. Why sacrifice even those doing a good job

  • Even in political system with term limits, I believe it is only for the top leader. The larger set of representatives and office bearers can serve their constituents as long as the constituents are happy with them (but I could be wrong, I am not an expert on politics)

I think we can define the problem more sharply. And perhaps explore other solutions as well (maybe categorization of roles with term limits and those without term limits, or maybe improving reporting by role holders, or strengthening the election process)

I hope this has not come out as overly negative. I am completely in support of improving bDAO. And Homie, we have partnered on multiple projects


True, I can see there being a need for differences in each guild, but I wonder if there needs to be a marker to make the decision for each guild,.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate it.

I dont forsee any negativity based on your response. I’m happy about seeing the apprehension, because that means that there are people thinking about it.

I was looking for some contrary thoughts to think about it.

I wonder if we’re looking at two different sides of the same coin. I have not had a good reporting of all of the roles in bDAO, but I don’t know if I would say that there limitless supplies of roles in each guild. The fact that there are elections would prove otherwise.

Now, if you are stating that there are no limited supply of bounty opportunities, then yes, i’ll agree. However, I think this is more on the point of coordination roles and leadership roles also.

Expand on the idea of the solution being stronger reporting?

Tell me about the “specialized knowledge” Yes, a product technical lead would require knowledge, I don’t know that all roles have had the required specialized knowledge that you are speaking of.

In regards to the warm community, overall, I think you’re right, but I’m not sure if the generalization of there not being apprehension for newer members is the right plan. The fact that there are contributors leaving, and there were contributors leaving even when the market was still a bull market. The fact that there is a need for a sentiment tracker may uncover the fact that bDAO does not mean the same person A, as it is to person B.

I was personally apprehensive on continuing my south wind role. I’m interested in seeing if others have apprehension that has not come to life. Not sure.

Really, you bring a lot of good points to the table here. I’d be interested in continuing the thought process here.

True, do other guilds have apprentice roles? I noticed Research Guild was kind of in the process of starting it @ernest_of_gaia , the quintessential governance guru has had a hand in apprenticeships for multiple guilds. But should there be an underlying document that can help guide people on how to create an apprenticeship?

probably created by @ernest_of_gaia if we’re being honest here…haha

1 Like


i’m interested in seeing what comes of this. can it be used in practice for other guilds.

I kind of had the same thoughts towards the role i had in research guild. @Og1963 scooped the role pretty quickly, and i said to myself, yeah…that seems cool. Let see what happens. Considering @Og1963 is on point with bringing the good vibes where he goes, It felt right to take a break from the south wind role. But it also got me to thinking, and why brought this thought to light.

1 Like

While I like the ideation, largely the DAO has had a hands off approach to how the different organizational units(guilds, departments, working groups and projects) below GC govern themselves.

I think this enables different group dynamics and organizing based on the needs of the different org.
Projects tend to be more dynamic, while guilds tend to be more governmental.

I DO think we should have term limits to the different org units where it makes sense, namely guilds and departments, although ultimately I think we should continue to enable these different units to self organize and govern based on their needs.



Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I support we generally have a term limit rule and think we need to step forward with a well-thought-out solution. We may ask ourselves the following questions:

  1. How long should the term limit be on the community level/guild level? Even at the same level, different positions may need different term limits.
  2. How to ensure each position has competitive candidates for election when an experienced role holder must leave the role due to the term limit?
  3. How can bDAO keep the talents within the community when they need to leave their roles due to the term limit?

I believe the term limit rule can help provide a more inclusive and healthy decentralized community and keep attracting new talents, which aligns with bDAO’s mission. With that in mind, I think we need to figure out a broader plan to prevent fixing one thing and creating another challenge. I’d be more than happy to work with you on this solution if this proposal goes further.

1 Like

Am 100% in support of this, there should be limited time for role holders to hold a particular role so as to give non role holders the opportunity to be more involved in the space. That’s why In daolationship there will be apprentice roles from season 5 so that folks can get more involved with what is happening in the guilds and projects too by learning from the current role holders. With this new development there will be enough contributors to handle guild related issues and also learn about governance and community management.
Kudos to you @homie for this wonderful idea!

Apologies for the delayed reply @homie .

I did think about the suggestion. And do think there is merit to exploring it. And you are correct, we may be looking at 2 sides of the same coin. We do have a shared interest in improving bDAO.

Just sharing a thought. One approach to exploring a solution, is to define the expected output as sharply as possible. So what output do we want from the proposed exercise

  1. Give a chance to new people to take on roles.
  2. Avoid role holders becoming relaxed
  3. Are we trying to make bDAO more efficient

If we are solving for #1. The limiting term of a role holder may only be a partial solution. Someone who retires from role X can apply to role Y, and have an unfair advantage because of their networks and supporters within bDAO

If we are solving for #2. The the solution could be to hold role holders more accountable.

Regarding the couple of clarifications from my original post

  • On "the solution being strong reporting’. I have elaborated above. I mean enhancing the reporting by the role holders on the work they have done. So they do not get relaxed, if that is the apprehension being addressed through this proposal
  • Specialized knowledge in my mind also includes one acquired for / while doing a role. GSE is one team that comes to mind for this.

And yes I agree. I perhaps overstated when I said there are no limited supply of roles. I meant that beyond the existing office bearer roles, people can create new roles and projects if the community approves.

Thanks for the time and effort you are putting in this.

1 Like


What an interesting thought you’ve brought to the table.

Simply putting a term limit would give you the chance to run for something else.

I’m going to think about this some more and come back with some thoughts.

1 Like

Yes, I’ve realized there are a few pitfalls here with a blanket term limit proposal.

Thanks for the insight. I’m going to come back with a tweak to my thought. It is clear that terms wouldn’t be a complete solution, but it could be a partial solution.

Now, we’d have to see what the rest of the answer would be.

1 Like

You are working on an important issue. It will take a few rounds of thinking for a solution to emerge. All the best

See, it seems to me that a vote could take place, on 1. Whether to have term limits, and 2, how long the term limits would be.

This seems like a double edged sword. You could run into the dreaded dictatorship situation, but you could also have an equally as difficult outcome with no one taking the charge and stewarding the ship.

I would say, a split the difference situation could work.

Thank you for the great idea and the fruitful discussion here. Most job descriptions of roles include “responsibilities” but not “qualifications” required to fulfil the expectations. If added, similar to a “career path”, a member will have the opportunity to visualize the path leading to a role and start developing competencies in line with these expectations. A role holder may then act as a “coach” in the last term of tenure to ensure each position has competitive candidates.

1 Like

I think referring to a potential “dictatorship situation” while having seasonal democratic elections doesn’t seem to be the correct terminology.


interesting view with apprentice role, but however how the roles were elected so far?
what makes people holding the roles now better than some people that would like to apply for roles in the future?

without apprentice it is try and fail principle, but that was the principle up to now as well, correct me if wrong, and it came up solid, if you ask me

nevertheless, I think that there should be a criteria who can apply, so we do not end up with many people applying for several roles, and as a background have one or two meeting being present, which happens