Agree to an official hand off date when the DAO ops proposal is approved on snapshot by the stewards
Proposed By
Essential Intent
Outcome
Proposal Date
Nov 23, 2021
Meeting Notes
Type
Last edited time
Jul 25, 2022
Outcome: Passed ✅
Outcome Summary
This proposal passed, and DAO Ops will spin out into its own workstream.
Proposal
CSDO #10
Proposal 1: Joe - [Passed]
- Tension: The unilateral decisions made early in combining onboarding squads have been making it difficult to pay contributors The way the stream had consolidated power took away autonomy of the squads and has delayed payments. This delay of payments had been blamed on the FDD system not working where the real problem lies in the way the squad was formed. (As evidenced by the system working in multiple other squads)
- Proposal: Agree to an official hand off date when the DAO ops proposal is approved on snapshot by the stewards. Afterwards, the payment models and which squads exist are to be decided by the DAOops. Before, they will maintain consistency with the FDD processes. Let this serve as an example of legitimacy in how spin-outs and transfers of squads occur.
- DAOops (or any workstream) does not hold the right to determine the scope of any other workstream
- DAO Ops does hold the right to create systems to inform the stewards and other contributors about the decisions a stream makes
- Agree to an official handoff of DAOops payment administration on the day following a successful setup of the DAOops multisig for the creation of a DAOops workstream
- Until then, any payments administered by FDD will use the FDD model for determining dRewards. After, they can use whatever model the DAOops stream wishes.
- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-AYF28k2tyv0-eDhfqcLdqymCRcp6CdTsDgkflsAqMU/edit?usp=sharing
- Clarifying Questions
- Loie: date/progress for the multisig - 11/29 (epoch 4) | epoch 5 forward will be sent to the multisig - doublechecking some points with Joe
- Reactions
- Brittney: Support the proposal given traction in this direction
- Loie: people have been adding their payments in the new document, don't support changing the november pay logic that ppl were expecting in order to use the FDD logic
- Annika: supportive of the direction
- austin: defer, learn & watch
- Kris: supportive of the proposal
- Philip: missing some of the scope - not exactly clear on what we want to achieve with this proposal here - supportive
- Amend & Clarify:
- Joe: FDD model is that the squad self-governs, only issue was that christine didn't get the info on who should get paid what. so want clear delineations on who is accountable
- Objections
- Proposal passed
CSDO #9
- Proposal 1: Joe
- Tension: The unilateral decisions made early in combining onboarding squads have been making it difficult to pay contributors The way the stream had consolidated power took away autonomy of the squads and has delayed payments. This delay of payments had been blamed on the FDD system not working where the real problem lies in the way the squad was formed. (As evidenced by the system working in multiple other squads)
- Proposal: Agree to an official hand off date when the DAO ops proposal is approved on snapshot by the stewards. Afterwards, the payment models and which squads exist are to be decided by the DAOops. Before, they will maintain consistency with the FDD processes. Let this serve as an example of legitimacy in how spin-outs and transfers of squads occur.
- No squads, initiatives, roles, or streams will be forcibly combined by any individual or governing body without mutual consent of the governance of the streams involved they are currently in OR the express consent of stewards via snapshot vote
- The stream they are in being defined by the workstream providing the budget
- (KW proposal) - In the event a disagreement cannot be resolved within the workstream, the topic can be brought to the DAOops can review and offer opinion, finally stewards will ultimately decide when a budget request is made by either party - OK for Joe
- DAOops (or any workstream) does not hold the right to determine the scope of any other workstream
- DAO Ops does hold the right to create systems to inform the stewards and other contributors about the decisions a stream makes
- Agree to an official handoff of DAOops payment administration on the day following a successful setup of the DAOops multisig for the creation of a DAOops workstream
- Until then, any payments administered by FDD will use the FDD model for determining dRewards. After, they can use whatever model the DAOops stream wishes.
- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-AYF28k2tyv0-eDhfqcLdqymCRcp6CdTsDgkflsAqMU/edit?usp=sharing
- Clarifying Questions
- Proposed handoff date: not set. (tuesday following snapshot vote)
- Kyle: no need to have a vote, or the workstream formally approved per past decision - ok for joe
- Annika: coordination structure? educating instead of mandating
- Clarification from Joe: whatever stream's budget is being used should be managing how work is funded because they are the accountable party
- Kyle: does point#2 extend bi-laterally, as in no workstream should determine the scope of any other workstream? Joe: yes
- Kris: do you agree that as soon as the multisig is set up, FDD will send the funds? - Joe: yes, FDD will send the full amount on the day the multisig is ready (not waiting for tally)
- Kyle: is point#1 basically a rework of point#2? For example, if onboarding is happening in multiple places, the onboarding efforst can't be combined without steward snapshot vote? - Joe: squad 1,2,3 were led by different ppl, squad 1 leader wanted to combine all 3 squads, but not all squad leads agreed, then squad 1 lead started making decisions that affected all 3 squads anyways. Where the budget is coming from is the one that should have the oversight of how the funds should be spent.
- kyle: so we're adding consent here, but does it need a stewards vote if there isn't consent among squad leads? - Joe: yes
- Reactions
- Kyle: supportive of #2 (no 1 WS can control another WS what to do). Payments we got to a good spot in that FDD will send funds once multisig is created. I'm nervous abt the push for more steward votes here, usually that's a blocker/slows us down. Biggest contention is with the idea that any internal lack of consent should be elevated to stewards. 1st bullet point is confusing, would rather rework it
- Joe: can we move to table this?
- Sean: agree with Kyle. #2 and #3 seem fine, #1 is not workable as written
- Kevin: #1 and #2 are already the current state of affairs. I support point #3, choosing hand off date for Ops funds
- Annika: #2 and #3 are fine, there is some superfluity but sometimes good to have those things clearly stated anyhow. amendment: if no consent among squad leads, elevate to DAO ops 1st before elevating to stewards
- Cali/Huxwell: fully supportive of #1 and #2, generall the whole proposal
- Kris: agree with a lot of what's been said. voicing that this is triggered by what has happened with onboarding squad. also, all of the details of handover of funds was agreed upon a couple weeks ago in a gov proposal. point #2 - everyone agrees no WS has that power. would be good to write out budget projections so we don't spend a long time bakc & forthing on it
- Amend & Clarify:
- Joe: agree with what Kevin pointed out abt state of affairs. I wrote out my amendments in the text. No squad or stream will be forcibly combined without mutual consent of the streams. Point #2 no change. Point #3 change: funds sent in full on the day DAO Ops multisig is set up
- Objections
- Kyle objecting to give more time for ratifications
- Consent to table it til next week