🗃️
Contributor Access Bundle DBs
/
Ratify an Official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO

Ratify an Official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO

Proposed By
Essential Intent
DAO Organization
Outcome
PASSED
Proposal Date
May 17, 2022
Meeting Notes
Type
Agreement
Last edited time
Jul 28, 2022
Meeting Notes:
Outcome: Passed ✅
Outcome Summary
The proposal passed, and an official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO will be published.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BKuIv3ZlA96kfx2P59Lvx8j60j26v0CLZBhgINhhxK0/edit#heading=h.e2uw05iol4i
Proposal
  • Tension:
    • There is a growing misalignment among GitcoinDAO contributors, stewards, and followers about the organization’s Purpose (what we hope to achieve in the next 100 years) and Essential Intent (what we hope to achieve over the next 12-18 months).
    • This misalignment was most recently felt during the S14 budget process where some DAO stewards voiced concerns about workstream spending based on outdated framings of the DAO’s purpose and essential work.
  • Proposal:
    • Ratify an official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO
      • As we enter a bear market, there is a renewed need to align and focus our work.
      • During the May 6th Cross-Stream DAO Roadmap session facilitated by Sam Spurlin of The Ready, workstream and Holdings attendees discussed and brainstormed possible updates to DAO’s stated Purpose and Essential Intents (see link).
      • At the end of the session, attendees elected a subgroup to draft language that synthesized the major themes of the session to be ratified by the CSDO and presented to DAO stewards. The subgroup included Jodi Callender, Annika Lewis, Kevin Owocki, Lindsey Thrift, and Kyle Weiss.
      • If ratified today, the draft language will be posted to the Governance Forum this week and presented at an upcoming Stewards Council meeting (Date: TBD).
      The subgroup submits the following draft language for CSDO ratification and steward presentation:
  • Clarifying Questions:
    • Kyle - To confirm, as a group we’ve come pretty far along in the purpose “To empower communities to build and fund their shared needs” which has nothing to do with public goods. Maybe we just walk through each intent and thumbs up/down on how this resonates with folks
    • Kris - On the purpose, the way it’s communicated to the outside world it’ll be a governance forum post...this language is just a draft right?
      • Jodi - Yes, this is a discussion we’re proposing here as a draft and for ratification, but eventually would want this to be language that is used officially with other workstreams. Would love to partner with MMM on refining the language.
      • Annika - The language here has been chosen very intentionally, having MMM think through how we publicize/blog this makes sense but changing the wording should require a larger group consensus.
    • Simona - my Q was: considering the protocol isn't live yet
      • Kevin - yes: Have a comprehensive, diversified strategy for financial stability of the DAO, protecting against downward pressure and capturing upside value.
  • Reactions:
    • Simona - it will still be perceived too broad by many
      • Sean - Agree
    • Kevin - so the purpose and essential intent would act as a filter for what the dao spends its resources on... is that right?
    • Sean - It’s pressure testing, the shared needs part is whats throwing me off, it’s very broad. Also agree on moving past public goods terminology
      • Lindsey - want to enable communities to have self-gov over what they build
      • Sean: The statement doesn’t make it clear that we’re giving them the opportunity to build for themselves
      • Kyle - We want to shift to being protocol focused, not just impact/investment focused. Knowing that, our purpose of supporting people to build their needs will be through the protocol. There’s a difference between the DAO-wide purpose and the Grants purpose. The Grants will be one of multiple protocols
    • Tigress - I would give a 👍 if we added a strategic guardrail for S15 and S16 of how to move forwards... who do we want to be - a protocol DAO? a social DAO? a investment DAO? a service DAO....
      • Lindsey - @tigress this is the 100 year purpose/mission
    • Laura - Yeah it still feels broad and am wondering how effective this would be to guide strategy building....
    • Tigress - yes, we need more guidance for s15 and s16 to haves less conflicting priorities for our next budgeting season
    • Kevin - i think its important that a community decides what its shared needs are, not us
    • Kevin - if a community needs toilet paper as their highest need according to their own consensus, then thats fine by me. its not our place as a credibly neutral mechanism to judge.
    • Joe - The 100 year mission is probably less directly relevant to us setting up budget proposals than the Essential Intent
    • Simona - but the Q is: will there be any impact or investment around the protocol
    • Tigress - we need a purpose, but we equally need strategic guardrails for s15 and 16 soon!
    • Kevin - "Build a widely adopted, modular Grants protocol that creates a flourishing ecosystem of funding mechanisms.” Yes
    • Kyle - Let’s get something ratified so we have something to share with the public. You don’t have to love it but you shouldn’t hate it
      • Reactions to Purpose
    • Thumbs up
      • Kyle - Foundation
      • Annika - PGF
      • Joe - FDD
        • Want to say “Every season we will re-evaluate our purpose and realign our north star/boundaries”
      • Chase - MC
      • Kris - DAO Ops
      • Lindsey - Holdings
    • Thumbs down
    • Need more time
      • Sean - MMM
        • Want to componentize and pressure test. Feel unable to ratify it at the moment with the given amount of time
        • Follow-up: Game to ratify & post
      Reaction Notes
    • Annika - Let’s get clear on the nuance, there was some hesitation so we shouldn’t phrase this as GTC DAO’s purpose until we nail it down. We can say it’s where CSDO landed, for now.
    • Sean - As we frame this to the larger community, we shouldn’t frame it as something we’re consistently revisiting. It’s more long-reaching, and won’t serve a purpose if it’s expressed short-term
      • Most agree
      Reactions to Essential Intents
    • Thumbs Up
      • Joe (FDD) - See a gap around ethics. What if we accelerated inequality through GR2.0 because the system wasn’t set up to accommodate this? How would we feel if we released a protocol that did what it claimed to do, but smaller groups couldn’t take the time to participate in it? Meritocracy - who has access to the education and tools that bring them further? Not pointing out anything that’s missing, just noticing there’s nothing around ethics, credibility, neutrality, legitimacy.
        • Kevin - i think legitimacy is implied by "Build a widely adopted, modular Grants protocol”
        • but i could see changing it to "Build a widely adopted, modular, highly legitimate Grants protocol "
      • Chase (MC) - Agree w/ Joe’s points
      • Lindsey (Holdings)
      • Kyle (Foundation)
        • Generally supportive, think there is equally important work for the grant protocol & program
      • Sean (MMM)
        • These are thoughtful, echoing separation between grants program vs protocol. Would help marketing see impact at different stages. Unsure if essential intents have more quantitative metrics associated w/ them, but if so that may be helpful? Could be dealt with somewhere else? Some way to say “we’ve done this”
      • Kris (DAO Ops)
      • Scott (PGF)
        • Same as Owocki about legitimacy, and it’ll shift based on community, steward, stakeholder, etc feedback
    • Thumbs Down
      • Reaction Notes
    • NOTE: Lindsey - we’re continuing to run a plan into the future that’s separate from the protocol, we should have an intent around what we’re doing separately. Just an “aha” moment
    • Purpose of essential intents: Priorities over the next 12-18 months. “These 4 groups over everything”
    • Tigress - widely adopted != proper ethics in place according to intention
    • Kevin - whose ethics are we talking about here? the community that the grants program is deployed to. IMO the ethereum community wont adopt a protocol that doesnt meet its ethical expectations.
    • Kevin - the problem with making it explicit is that ethics/legitimacy can mean different things to different people. the legitimacy of credible neutrality and sybil resistence is more important than other types of legitimacy i think.
    • Kevin - so idk how to qualify what constitutes legitimacy here.
  • Amendments:
    • Jodi - Liked Kevin’s suggestion to add “highly legitimate” before posting to the governance forum
      • Jodi will add the amendments as notes to the draft
      • Jodi will share the draft with CSDO before posting
        • Kyle will weigh in
  • Objections?
    • Essential Intents w/ Amendments
      • Lindsey
        • Scott - Not a huge difference between language. We’ll need to define it with community anyways but defer to Jodi
  • Passed?
    • Purpose - Yes
    • Essential Intents - Yes, without the amendments
🗃️
Contributor Access Bundle DBs
/
Ratify an Official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO

Ratify an Official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO

Proposed By
Essential Intent
DAO Organization
Outcome
PASSED
Proposal Date
May 17, 2022
Meeting Notes
Type
Agreement
Last edited time
Jul 28, 2022
Meeting Notes:
Outcome: Passed ✅
Outcome Summary
The proposal passed, and an official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO will be published.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BKuIv3ZlA96kfx2P59Lvx8j60j26v0CLZBhgINhhxK0/edit#heading=h.e2uw05iol4i
Proposal
  • Tension:
    • There is a growing misalignment among GitcoinDAO contributors, stewards, and followers about the organization’s Purpose (what we hope to achieve in the next 100 years) and Essential Intent (what we hope to achieve over the next 12-18 months).
    • This misalignment was most recently felt during the S14 budget process where some DAO stewards voiced concerns about workstream spending based on outdated framings of the DAO’s purpose and essential work.
  • Proposal:
    • Ratify an official Purpose and Essential Intents for Gitcoin DAO
      • As we enter a bear market, there is a renewed need to align and focus our work.
      • During the May 6th Cross-Stream DAO Roadmap session facilitated by Sam Spurlin of The Ready, workstream and Holdings attendees discussed and brainstormed possible updates to DAO’s stated Purpose and Essential Intents (see link).
      • At the end of the session, attendees elected a subgroup to draft language that synthesized the major themes of the session to be ratified by the CSDO and presented to DAO stewards. The subgroup included Jodi Callender, Annika Lewis, Kevin Owocki, Lindsey Thrift, and Kyle Weiss.
      • If ratified today, the draft language will be posted to the Governance Forum this week and presented at an upcoming Stewards Council meeting (Date: TBD).
      The subgroup submits the following draft language for CSDO ratification and steward presentation:
  • Clarifying Questions:
    • Kyle - To confirm, as a group we’ve come pretty far along in the purpose “To empower communities to build and fund their shared needs” which has nothing to do with public goods. Maybe we just walk through each intent and thumbs up/down on how this resonates with folks
    • Kris - On the purpose, the way it’s communicated to the outside world it’ll be a governance forum post...this language is just a draft right?
      • Jodi - Yes, this is a discussion we’re proposing here as a draft and for ratification, but eventually would want this to be language that is used officially with other workstreams. Would love to partner with MMM on refining the language.
      • Annika - The language here has been chosen very intentionally, having MMM think through how we publicize/blog this makes sense but changing the wording should require a larger group consensus.
    • Simona - my Q was: considering the protocol isn't live yet
      • Kevin - yes: Have a comprehensive, diversified strategy for financial stability of the DAO, protecting against downward pressure and capturing upside value.
  • Reactions:
    • Simona - it will still be perceived too broad by many
      • Sean - Agree
    • Kevin - so the purpose and essential intent would act as a filter for what the dao spends its resources on... is that right?
    • Sean - It’s pressure testing, the shared needs part is whats throwing me off, it’s very broad. Also agree on moving past public goods terminology
      • Lindsey - want to enable communities to have self-gov over what they build
      • Sean: The statement doesn’t make it clear that we’re giving them the opportunity to build for themselves
      • Kyle - We want to shift to being protocol focused, not just impact/investment focused. Knowing that, our purpose of supporting people to build their needs will be through the protocol. There’s a difference between the DAO-wide purpose and the Grants purpose. The Grants will be one of multiple protocols
    • Tigress - I would give a 👍 if we added a strategic guardrail for S15 and S16 of how to move forwards... who do we want to be - a protocol DAO? a social DAO? a investment DAO? a service DAO....
      • Lindsey - @tigress this is the 100 year purpose/mission
    • Laura - Yeah it still feels broad and am wondering how effective this would be to guide strategy building....
    • Tigress - yes, we need more guidance for s15 and s16 to haves less conflicting priorities for our next budgeting season
    • Kevin - i think its important that a community decides what its shared needs are, not us
    • Kevin - if a community needs toilet paper as their highest need according to their own consensus, then thats fine by me. its not our place as a credibly neutral mechanism to judge.
    • Joe - The 100 year mission is probably less directly relevant to us setting up budget proposals than the Essential Intent
    • Simona - but the Q is: will there be any impact or investment around the protocol
    • Tigress - we need a purpose, but we equally need strategic guardrails for s15 and 16 soon!
    • Kevin - "Build a widely adopted, modular Grants protocol that creates a flourishing ecosystem of funding mechanisms.” Yes
    • Kyle - Let’s get something ratified so we have something to share with the public. You don’t have to love it but you shouldn’t hate it
      • Reactions to Purpose
    • Thumbs up
      • Kyle - Foundation
      • Annika - PGF
      • Joe - FDD
        • Want to say “Every season we will re-evaluate our purpose and realign our north star/boundaries”
      • Chase - MC
      • Kris - DAO Ops
      • Lindsey - Holdings
    • Thumbs down
    • Need more time
      • Sean - MMM
        • Want to componentize and pressure test. Feel unable to ratify it at the moment with the given amount of time
        • Follow-up: Game to ratify & post
      Reaction Notes
    • Annika - Let’s get clear on the nuance, there was some hesitation so we shouldn’t phrase this as GTC DAO’s purpose until we nail it down. We can say it’s where CSDO landed, for now.
    • Sean - As we frame this to the larger community, we shouldn’t frame it as something we’re consistently revisiting. It’s more long-reaching, and won’t serve a purpose if it’s expressed short-term
      • Most agree
      Reactions to Essential Intents
    • Thumbs Up
      • Joe (FDD) - See a gap around ethics. What if we accelerated inequality through GR2.0 because the system wasn’t set up to accommodate this? How would we feel if we released a protocol that did what it claimed to do, but smaller groups couldn’t take the time to participate in it? Meritocracy - who has access to the education and tools that bring them further? Not pointing out anything that’s missing, just noticing there’s nothing around ethics, credibility, neutrality, legitimacy.
        • Kevin - i think legitimacy is implied by "Build a widely adopted, modular Grants protocol”
        • but i could see changing it to "Build a widely adopted, modular, highly legitimate Grants protocol "
      • Chase (MC) - Agree w/ Joe’s points
      • Lindsey (Holdings)
      • Kyle (Foundation)
        • Generally supportive, think there is equally important work for the grant protocol & program
      • Sean (MMM)
        • These are thoughtful, echoing separation between grants program vs protocol. Would help marketing see impact at different stages. Unsure if essential intents have more quantitative metrics associated w/ them, but if so that may be helpful? Could be dealt with somewhere else? Some way to say “we’ve done this”
      • Kris (DAO Ops)
      • Scott (PGF)
        • Same as Owocki about legitimacy, and it’ll shift based on community, steward, stakeholder, etc feedback
    • Thumbs Down
      • Reaction Notes
    • NOTE: Lindsey - we’re continuing to run a plan into the future that’s separate from the protocol, we should have an intent around what we’re doing separately. Just an “aha” moment
    • Purpose of essential intents: Priorities over the next 12-18 months. “These 4 groups over everything”
    • Tigress - widely adopted != proper ethics in place according to intention
    • Kevin - whose ethics are we talking about here? the community that the grants program is deployed to. IMO the ethereum community wont adopt a protocol that doesnt meet its ethical expectations.
    • Kevin - the problem with making it explicit is that ethics/legitimacy can mean different things to different people. the legitimacy of credible neutrality and sybil resistence is more important than other types of legitimacy i think.
    • Kevin - so idk how to qualify what constitutes legitimacy here.
  • Amendments:
    • Jodi - Liked Kevin’s suggestion to add “highly legitimate” before posting to the governance forum
      • Jodi will add the amendments as notes to the draft
      • Jodi will share the draft with CSDO before posting
        • Kyle will weigh in
  • Objections?
    • Essential Intents w/ Amendments
      • Lindsey
        • Scott - Not a huge difference between language. We’ll need to define it with community anyways but defer to Jodi
  • Passed?
    • Purpose - Yes
    • Essential Intents - Yes, without the amendments