DAO Ops Coordination #7
Date
Nov 9, 2021
🔗 Initiative
🔗 Working Documents
Workstream
PART I: PROPOSALS (30')
- Proposal 1 - Kris
- Tension: we want to bring down overwhelm for anyone on discord, including Stewards. There is no consistency between what stewards see and what they don't see.
- Proposal: Give Stewards only access to the main channels (L1) plus the chats people will see who onboard to the DAO (L2), but not all the active channels plus the channels that are relevant under Govern Gitcoin (L4), such as steward-circle. If they need more access to other levels because they are active contributors, we add them to those roles.
- Context: https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_lsl912M=/
- Clarifying Questions:
- Reactions
- Loie: simplify experience
- Brittney: ok
- Joe: steward category, create level of urgencies for this
- Kevin: +1, discord group but these are stewards so they need to be informed
- QZ: operational perspective
- Scott: +1 - ensure process for stewards
- Proposal is: L2 only access for stewards + inform stewards in stewards-circle
- Proposal passed
- Proposal 2 - Loie
- Tension: Need a way to quickly confirm we can transparently pay someone for a 1-off task, without weeks of budget approval. Example: Loie has a copywriter rewriting an email drip, but she has no way to know if she will be able to get that copywriter paid
- Proposal: Allow Loie to control a slush fund of 200 GTC so she can instantly disburse to contributors she has delegated work to. Moonshot stepped in to modify GTC Streams app for this purpose: Loie's fund can have up to 200GTC/month in it, and she can (on chain!) state reasons for payout each time she withdraws to a contributor's address.
- Links: Austin's description of the build: https://twitter.com/austingriffith/status/1457842838952038400 and the stream/slush fund itself: https://gtc-stream.surge.sh/user/loie.eth
- Clarifying Questions:
- Scott: What specific activities would be in this budget? Loie: all people ops task falling under daoops tasks
- Kyle: would we allow other WSs to do this? Loie: would be great to let other people do this
- Kyle: voting this as a ratify for all streams or just people ops? Loie: for now as a trial
- Reactions
- Joe: make budget available from FDD.
- Scott: If we want to make this a norm, should be clear what the details are - scott gives 15GTC/hr to people who are adding value
- Kevin: in support of this. Would be happy to provide the first month holdings or MC.
- QZ: very supportive, some things can get very complicated fast. Quick way for people to get involved
- Brittney: makes sense, as long as transparent
- Kyle: skip
- Kris: could work for temporary things & the amounts should possibly not be enormous
- Philip: Supportive and thinks its a great way to continue to move quickly while we work toward finding a more long term solution
- Proposal: as is + rate standardization
- Proposal passed;
- 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.
PART II: UPDATES/QUESTIONS/OPEN DISCUSSION (30')
- Discord DAO Great Rework & Core Great Migration happening this week (Kris & Kyle)
- Contributors call (thu) vs core call (tue) vs team demo & hangout (friday)?
- GTC vs Gitcoin (Kris)
- [KW] - GTC is a token... Gitcoin is an organization :troll:
- Doing a coordinator coordination call to build capacity for coordinators here
- some ♥️♥️♥️ from Ryan
- calendar for now, update is currently blocked on payment quote.
- phutchins working on devops, onboarded team member 2 days ago to work on this, currently early development on what's happening. in moonshot there's many developers using personal credit cards, 1,000 per month RPC bill. not good for this situation. open collective on crypto to credit card connection. currently the format is for the LLC to handle payments then expense later. ops > are you blocked, how can we help calls
- good to get a list of services people use that we can have. using xDAI with quicknode, 3 different RPC providers for eth mainnet. costs are huge because of greatestlarp. many individual developer keys for scaffold-eth. use a lot of RPC stuff because web3 everything. some issue about key delegation too, not all using same API key. might hit rate limits etc.
- set up an ipfs node because of rate limiting. once ML pipeline is done and have CI/CD going we can just save cost to pay people to do stuff