The CDO WG will present this model in an all-hands on January 9th, 2023.
This proposal from the Core Dev WG presents an organizational model for the Core Development Org (CDO). The role of the Core Development Org is to support and fund core development of the Radicle project. This Org will replace the role of the Foundation in funding & coordinating the work of Radicle’s Core Teams.
- Maintain and develop the Radicle stack
- Drive adoption of Radicle technologies
- Support the development of the Radicle community
- Maintain core development vision, objectives, and technical philosophies
- Onboard and offboard Core Teams
- Collect, review, prioritize, and distribute budget of Core Teams
- Create (funding and technical) proposals for submission to RadicleDAO
Our design sprint resulted in three different models: Distributed Council (Flat), Distributed Council (Advisory), Distributed Groups. The first two prototypes played on the current organizational model of the Radicle Foundation, where the Foundation Council funds & coordinates all Radicle core development. The Flat version re-envisioned the Council to be made up of a representative from each Core Team. The Advisory version was the same, but included a third-party advisor that could act on behalf of the Core Teams within the Council. The Groups model split vision, planning/coordination, and execution among three separate groups. It also included a “voice” mechanism for Core Teams via a Veto Council composed of a representative from each Core Team.
The proposed Org Design is a combination of the Distributed Council and Distributed Groups prototypes. It maintains the trusted “Council” approach — meaning, a few individuals are entrusted to make strategic decisions for the whole, but introduces a mechanism of “voice” from Core Teams to ensure contributors have a way to check the power of those in charge. The org design is composed of 4 stakeholders.
- Steering Committee
- Core Teams
- Core Team Council
- Internal Governance Facilitator
In our proposed model, the Steering Committee is the governing power of the Core Development Org. It manages the vision, coordination, and budgeting of the Core Teams.
List of Responsibilities
- Set and maintain yearly CDO Vision & Objectives, prioritize cross-team work, and coordinate roadmaps
- Review & approve CT objectives (yearly)
- Review & approve CT budgets (yearly)
- Process CT budget increase requests (quarterly)
- Create and submit org proposals to the RadicleDAO
- Choose methods for measuring CT progress (e.g. health checks)
- Define what constitutes a “Core Team”
- Set yearly CDO vision and objectives
- Onboard/offboard a Core Team
- Add/remove a Steering Committee Member
- Steering Committee Members: The Members of the Steering Committee are selected by Core Team contributors. They are composed of any CDO Contributor. We propose that the size of the Committee should be capped at five people to ensure ease of coordination and distribution of workload. We also propose that the Foundation Council & Core Dev Org WG chooses the first set of Members, but any contributor can nominate an individual for consideration (See Steering Committee Member Elections). After the CDO is launched, Core Teams can move to add/remove Steering Committee Members via Core Team Council (See Core Team Council). Steering Committee Members are compensated.
- Multisig: Steering Committee Members are signers on the CDO’s multisig. This multisig manages the operational budgets of the Core Teams. It is governed by a 2/3 super-majority policy.
- Budgets: On an annual basis, the Steering Committee submits a funding proposal to the RadicleDAO that includes the estimated yearly budgets of the Core Teams. Once passed, the funding is distributed to the CDO’s multisig. If additional budget is required by the CDO throughout the year, the Steering Committee can submit an Additional Budget Request to the DAO.
The Core Team Council is an ad-hoc decision-making entity that can be called by Core Team Contributors. It acts as a collective “voice” mechanism for CDO contributors to check the power of the Steering Committee.
The Council is composed of one representative from each Core Team. Core Teams choose their representation at their own discretion, but the collective Council can vote to remove a Core Team Rep. Council Reps are not compensated.
The Council is only called to vote when a Core Team contributor requests to:
- Add/remove a Steering Committee member
- Challenge a Steering Committee action (e.g. onboarding/offboarding a Core Team, setting yearly CDO objectives)
- Add/remove a Core Team Council Rep
The composition of the CDO’s Steering Committee is formally governed by its contributors. This ensures the Steering Committee always acts in the best interest of the CDO’s contributors. A petition to add/remove a Steering Committee member can be made at any time but must include effective reasoning for the proposed change.
The Council can challenge a Steering Committee action. A challenge is a way for CDO contributors to formally counter a Steering Committee action. The Steering Committee still retains the right of final decision, but challenging an action is the way contributors can formally voice their opinion for the Steering Committee’s consideration. In this light, a petition (See Petition) to challenge a Steering Committee action must include a revised action(s) for the Steering Committee to take. If passed, the Steering Committee is expected to conduct a formal review of the petition, and present a revised plan of action. The final process for challenging SC decisions (e.g. windows and timeframes, challenging limits) still needs to be discussed. If you have ideas of input, please feel free to share.
While Core Teams are able to choose their Rep on their own accord, the collective Core Team Council is able to add/remove a Rep on the Org’s behalf. This is to ensure that the Council best represents the collective of CDO Contributors. A petition to add/remove a Core Team Rep must include effective reasoning for the proposed change.
A request is made by any Core Team Contributor publishing a petition on community.radworks.org. Petitions must meet certain criteria to be considered. These criteria are defined and evaluated by the Internal Governance Facilitator (see Internal Governance Facilitator). Once a petition has been published, the Internal Governance Facilitator convenes the Council for a Snapshot vote. The action passes if 2/3 super-majority is reached.
To ensure that governance processes within the CDO are conducted fairly, the Org employs an Internal Governance Facilitator. This facilitator manages the internal governance of the Org by facilitating voting cycles, creating governance templates (e.g. petitions, challenges), creating conflict moderation processes as a neutral “third party”, and determining the process of onboarding/offboarding Org-level roles. The facilitator is a part-time role, and is a secondary role that any Core Team contributor can hold — similar to a Steering Committee Member role. The Internal Governance Facilitator can’t be a Steering Committee Member or Core Team Council Rep, but they are a signer on the multisig of the Steering Committee so they can initiate actions such as adding/removing a Member on behalf of both the Steering Committee and Core Team Council. Internal Governance Facilitators are compensated.
The CDO WG will present this model in an all-hands on January 9th, 2023. CDO Contributors can provide feedback in any or all of the following forms:
- During the presentation, we’ll be using Slido for anon questions (or contributors can ask openly/in chat).
- For the next two weeks (until Jan. 20th), we will be offering office hours (1:1 time to go through the structure or any questions). DM louiegrey#0425 on Discord to schedule.
- Leave comments on this forum post.
These three models were presented to core contributors who offered feedback (thank you to @efstajas , @fintohaps , @cloudhead , @rudolfs , @Kaidao , @ange , and @sebastinez !). A few insights emerged:
- The simplicity of the Flat and Advisory resonated the most among contributors and there was a general interest in the Group’s Veto Council as a voice mechanism for the Core Teams.
- There was a desire for contributors to voice in the overall vision that’s set annually.
- Contributors valued minimal governance processes, meaning minimizing new roles & additional approvals as necessary.
- There was a call for an agile and iterative org structure that supports where Radicle is today, but can grow as Radicle grows.
- Most had a positive reaction to a creation of an Ops Team.
- There were voiced concerns over the workload of members of the Council in all models.
We are proposing the following initial election process for the Steering Committee:
- The Core Dev Org WG and current Foundation Council will nominate the initial set of Steering Committee Members. Their nominations will be posted publicly on this community.radworks.org forum.
- Following this post, there will be a one-week nomination period where any CDO Contributor (inside the org) can nominate themselves or others on the post. If someone is nominated, the nominee must publicly state on the forum post that they accept the nomination for running.
- After the end of the nomination period (one week), there will be a Snapshot vote open to all Core Team contributors, using Otterspace badges. (1 badge = 1 vote).
After the Steering Committee is launched, Core Team contributors can add/remove Steering Committee members by petitioning the Core Team Council (see Add/Remove a Core Team Council. Finer details of this process are still being discussed and open for feedback.
Petitions are used to Challenge a Steering Committee Action or Add/Remove Steering Committee Members/Core Team Council Reps. The Internal Governance Facilitator will maintain a petition template as a consistent manner to deliver feedback, while ensuring its contents meet communication requirements.
The initial suggested petition utilizes the COIN Framework, which structures feedback in the following:
Context: The circumstances, event or issue to discuss.
Observations: Specific, actual and neutral descriptions of actions.
Impact: How the event or issue affects others in the organization.
Next Steps: Suggested changes or improvements to move forward.
If you have additional questions or comments, please leave them below. We’re looking forward to your thoughts!
Core Development Org WG