Limit the number of people who attend this call to WS leads
Proposed By
Essential Intent
Outcome
Proposal Date
Nov 9, 2021
Meeting Notes
Type
Last edited time
Jul 25, 2022
Meeting Notes:
Outcome:
Outcome Summary
Proposal
CSDO #8
- Proposal 1 - Kris
- Tension: It's difficult for people to understand how we are organized within this emerging workstream, what should be discussed in which call & especially who should/can attend.
- Proposal:
- Limit the number of people in this call to ensure the currently approved process has a chance to function and be efficient so we can achieve our mission as one strong & highly collaborative team.
- Proposed seats at the table:
- 1 active seat per WS + holdings → reactions, clarifications & objections
- 1 optional passive seat per WS + holdings → no clarifications, reactions & objections (sync with your peer in dm's)
- Concretely (names are suggestions):
- PG - (eg. Scott + Annika)
- FDD - (eg. Joe + Christine)
- Dgitcoin - (eg. Philip + Cali)
- MMM - (eg. Fred + Sean)
- MC - (eg. Kevin + Austin)
- DAOOps - (eg. Kris + Simona)
- Holdings - (eg. Kyle + Loie)
- This call is an opt-in call that promotes cross-dao collaboration, unified processes & services that contribute to achieving Gitcoin's mission. This meeting cannot enforce Workstreams to do anything. Workstream leads are empowered to object to any proposal.
- Holacracy (integrative decision making) was ratified as our approach. Key reminders:
- DAOops (Kris) has the moderation responsibilities (to start)
- Clarifying questions on handraise,
- Reactions by taking turns. No crosstalk, limit chat usage, respect & listen to your peers: wait for your turn 🙏
- Objections occur after integrations of reactions
- Proposal remains to only make decisions for topics that have a clear tension and action proposed and all to enact the proposal are already in place.
- Practical change: Kris calls on Workstreams for reactions rather than people OR people indicate at start who's active & who's not.
- The remaining time of the call can be used for quick sharing, questions & open discussions.
- This is an integrated proposal after discussion between Scott, Kyle, Joe, Simona & Kris
- Note: How might we ratify a proposal with the consent of the governed to ensure it is legitimate:
- The argument remains that we need to have the people in the meeting who work across the dao + WS leads.
- We can put this on the forum if needed, but from simona's checkins with stewards it is clear that there is no worry about legitimacy here.
- We should focus less on hardcore decentralization atm, and more on getting the basic infra covered. For this reason a slight 'over'representation of 'cross-dao' people (daoops+holdings) makes total sense.
- Optimizing for stability and a representative decision making process is critical to our quick iteration and learning
- Clarifying questions:
- Fred: can we rephrase the wording so it's more clear that WS decide their own representatives as opposed to being hardcoded into the proposal? kris: yes, changed.
- Reactions:
- Loie: If passive, requirement to post x days in advance, so observers can read ahead of time, suggestion 24hrs. See myself more as a representative of DAOs. Would be good to have a "Passive" be note taker.
- Annika: Makes sense - 24hrs might be difficult sometimes
- Phil: Okay proposal. Addendum could be to define exact role
- Joe: Ok with proposal & separation of two proposals. Part of the reason for the passive person is that the other person can stay in the loop. This can all create bottom up legitimacy
- Kevin: Anyone can create bottoms-up legitimacy by agreeing on a proposal. Suppo
- Kyle: No additional feedback
- Sean: Pass
- Fred: Like proposal a lot, makes calls more effective, make things short & succinct
- Scott: Ok on proposal
- Simona: Let's go forward with this, representatives can be decided by WS
- Christine: Nothing to add, good proposal
- Integrated proposal
- Proposal as stated
- Soft objection: if not posted 24hrs in advance
- Next step:
- Tag WS leads in a thread to get an agreement on representatives
Context:
CSDO #7
- Proposal 3 - Kris
- Tension: It's difficult for people to understand how we are organized within this new workstream and what should be discussed in which call & which ones to attend. This goal of this call is to only make decisions for topics that have a clear tension and action proposed and all to enact the proposal are already in place. The remaining time of the call can be used for quick information sharing & open discussions.
- Proposal:
- Limit the number of people who attend this call to WS leads (+ one standby delegate) + DAOops coordinators (Kris, Simona, Kyle, Loie).
- Joe - Who decided these are the workstream coordinators? (Not disagreeing, but questioning for legitimacy) Maybe we can ratify the participants of the governance council today?
- Each workstream has one vote? Does gitcoin holdings count as a workstream?
- DAOops governance call = What squads are in DAOops & How do they split the budget
- [KW] - I had envisioned Gitcoin Holdings long term doesn't have a vote per se (it should be the workstream leads). We have already agreed we want a unique workstream to represent DAO Ops (Accounting, Legal, Support, etc.) - This meeting to me is higher level decision making that span the whole of the DAO (and we use this meeting to decide on those things)... Once again, thinking about how we achieve our mission, what is our mission... not the tactical ops related things like which accounting process or sheet to use (that should be handled in the Ops workstream... not the cross stream governance calls).
- Proposal details:
- "Voters" are default the WS lead, and when they cannot join it is their delegate - One vote per workstream
- currently: PGF (Scott/Linh), FDD (Joe), MMM (Brittney/Fred), Moonshot(Austin/Kevin), dGrants (Philip)
- future state includes: DAO Ops (TBD)
- Gitcoin Holdings has two votes (one delegate from Holdings, one delegated to a DAO member)
- proposed voters: Loie, QZ
- Cross Stream DAO Ops (CSDO) is the collective of the voters above. Meeting minutes could be shared
- There needs to be distinction between DAO Ops (the workstream) and CSDO the collective governing body of the workstreams.
- Anything that is not ready for proposals (ie more consulting is expected/needed) can be fleshed out in the community call, where a larger audience is very much welcomed. For topics that we get stuck on and we need steward or community buy-in forum proposals and/or stewards council are the way to go.
- Adopt simple naming logic for everything within DAOops (see below)
- Context: Proposed simple structure for our DAOOps structure is as follows
- Cross DAO Ops Governance Call (aka CSDG aka cross DAOOps aka Ops call etc)
- = decisions only + status update
- Limited audience
- Cross DAO Ops Contributors Call (aka community xp call)
- Inform + coordinate Initiatives within the WS
- Semi-open call of active contributors (RASCI)
- Responsible, Accountible, Supporting, Consulted roles only
- Informed happens during weekly demo call (hosted by Ryan)
- Initiatives
- Legal
- Support
- Accounting
- Onboarding
- People Ops (Values, Mission/Vision, peer feedback process, conflict resolution, …)
- Tools (Calendar, Notion, Discord, knowledge DB…)
- Clarifying questions:
- loie: context part of proposal? kris: yes
- Reactions
- Joe: overweight of people are in gitcoin holdings. we should first decide how to make decisions. Object to this and table until this. A possibility is to have a token? (see proposal joe on forum). This stream should not dictate what other groups should do. This group should enable what other groups do. Objecting specifically to the division who gets votes. The least amount of decisions should be made in this stream. We're here to collaborate on services.
- Philip: Somewhere in between. We have a way to go before we can take votes, all for streams to have their independence. Love the idea of having workstreams having daoops 'services' in this call. Not sure if we're there to figure out things. What things does this group decide and what not? Quite some questions, until we figure it out this could work? It's speed vs decentralization.
- Brittney: Torn on this. Makes sense to keep this small, might be premature. Would prefer to define more what this group does.
- QZ: History of this group is a runaway experiment, there are pressing concerns we need to fix. Tension: make decisions for entire workstreams, whereas they need independence.
- Simona: Balance between diversity and efficiency. Streamlining too much squeezes the soul out of it. Representation is super important, what does this look like? Maybe WS could just elect one representative instead of having multiple people come in & represent?
- Kevin: Complex multidimensional tradeoff space. Who am I representing here? Dao or holdings? Where does legitimacy come from? Stewards not here. Tradeoff of pragmatism vs full decentralization. Scaleability trilemma comes to mind here. Ideal solution is more pragmatic. We're in a time of great flux with holdings dissolving. Difficult to swallow the 'whole elephant' here.
- Kyle: Appreciate proposal. Rational in a time that we're still learning. Maybe only have WS leads have a vote? We're it, let's try to move forward together and not question everything. Perfect should not be the enemy of good enough (knowing we can evolve over time)
- Loie: Support limiting to attendees listed out there incl notes on what constitutes a meeting. This is quite a big proposal. Not ready to react to the 'context' part
- Scott: Agreement on making this a limited number people. Standardization should not go so far that voices are not heard anymore, but we need this to some extent to ratify things. Mostly agree, proposals should be very concrete. Scott & simona working on council for stewards.
- Joe:: This is a complex situation we are building. This is the seed that will sprout the future of our collaboration.
- Integrated proposal:
- conclusion is Kris, Scott, Simona, Joe will work on an updated proposal for this.