[Discussion] Core Dev Org Proposal

🌱 About 🔮 Transition to the DAO
2

All-Hands Q&A

Below is a collection of the questions that came up in the All Hands call hosted for core contributors on Monday. I am posting them here for added context as folks review & digest the proposal.

We have picked out a few specific open questions that we would like your feedback on at the top. The Q&A in the second half of the post include some direct answers to clarifying questions from the presented model.

INPUT WE NEED FROM YOU!

  • If someone is removed from the Steering Committee, should that a “perma-ban”? Can they be added back at some point in the future (or immediately)? Furhtermore: What behaviors would permit a permanent ban? What behaviors/metrics would reinstate a Member? (see Organizational principles from former WG research for guidance)

  • Should the scope of the Internal Governance Facilitator’s role include conflict management? Is there anything else you think the IGF role should be or not include?

  • With that in mind, who do you imagine holding the IGF role?

    1. Existing CDO Contributors who are on Core Teams that we believe still act neutrally in conflict
    2. Contributors not in Core Teams or not engaged in Core Team activity (ie. Operations, someone in a different Org within the DAO - someone like Shelby or bordum)
    3. Someone outside of the DAO
    4. Other?

  • Should the roles of Steering Committee Member, Core Team Council Rep & IGF have regular elections vs operating on “optimistic” terms. If yes, what would be the right cadence for elections? Would CDO Contributors be open to voting for elections quarterly or annually or some other cadence?

  • Is anonymous voting (with Otterspace badges within the CDO) something that we should explore more deeply as an option for contributors while setting up voting systems?

  • Should we set up a more formal process for accepting anons into trust roles within the Org (i.e. Steering Committee Member, Core Team Council Rep & IGF)?

Q&A From Call

Steering Committee

  • How does the Steering Committee work? Does it also have an opaque process like the Foundation does today? Will it organize freely like a Core Team?

    Answer: The Steering Committee organizes autonomously like a Core Team to fulfill their quarterly and annual responsibilities. While the proposal does not define how they should work or how opaque they need to be in the process (public meetings, quarterly report, etc), it defines the set of accountable outcomes that must be public and transparent – “Actions” (Annual vision/objectives, onboarding/offboarding Core Teams, Add/Removing a Steering Committee Member). Thoughts are welcomed. The WG will work with the initial set of Steering Committee Members to set best practices.

  • Who are the Steering Committee Members anticipated to be, if they’re not the Core Team Leads?

    Answer: While the CDO WG and Foundation Council will nominate an initial set of Steering Committee Members, there will be an open nomination process where any CDO Contributor can self-nominate or nominate others. We anticipate Members with diverse skillsets to fulfill the Steering Committee responsibilities. The final Committee Members are elected through a voting process involving all CDO Contributors. While Core Team Leads could also theoretically be a Steering Committee Member, they can’t hold another role (such as a Core Team Council Rep or Internal Governance Facilitator).

Core Team Council

  • Is the Core Team Council all “soft governance”? Is there a formal/blockchain component where they can interact with the Steering Committee multsig? It would be nice to see the technical underpinnings of relationship between Council & Steering committee.

    Answer: This concern is based on this element of the proposed design: “The Steering Committee still retains the right of final decision, but challenging an action is the way contributors can formally voice their revisions for the Steering Committee’s consideration. The Steering Committee is expected to incorporate revised actions from revision proposals.”

    While the Core Team Council can petition revisions through formally challenging
    the Steering Committee’s actions, the Core Team Council has absolute power in adding/removing a Steering Committee Member. This provides an incentive for the SC members to take revision proposals into account or risk being voted off of the SC.

    How this would look “under the hood” has a few possibilities. The first would be to set up a Zodiac Reality mod that would, in the case of an off-chain Otterspace badge vote, execute an on-chain action on the SC multi-sig for the case of adding/removing SC members. Another option would be to give the Internal Governance Facilitator, Operations team or possibly the DAO token holders special permissions that override SC multisig signer.

Internal Governance

  • Can there be anonymous ways of posting petitions (to challenge Steering Committee decisions)?

    Answer: While technically posting on the forum can be anonymous, we are hoping to use Otterspace badge as a reputation mechanism to check posts are from a valid contributor within CDO without needed to reveal their identity. We will look into more mechanisms.

  • Is there any periodic renewal of the Int. Gov Facilitator? Or are the Committees and the Facilitator set until a change is requested?

    Answer: While the default at the moment is set at an “optimistic” process where individuals hold the position as long as they don’t get removed by the Core Team Council or want to leave the role, election cycles for the Internal Governance Facilitator (as well as the Steering Committee members) are very much open for discussion. While setting election cycles (quarterly/annually) to keep elected roles in regular check, they require contributor governance interaction through voting.

  • Is Otterspace still working on anon voting (with badges)?

    Answer: They are planning on exploring private badges using zk technology, but that wouldn’t technically make the vote anonymous if its on-chain. Snapshot is has anonymous “shielded voting” off chain.

Roles/Process

  • Does “onboard CT” mean “hiring a new Core Team member”? What entity will make decisions about hiring?

    Answer: Onboarding a CT (Core Team) is referring to the creation and funding of a new Core Team alongside the existing Core Teams (Clients, Funding, Marketing, Community) based on the needs of the CDO. Hiring individual contributors on each Core Team will be primarily left up to the Core Teams themselves. This will be partially checked by the Steering Committee during quarterly Core Team check-ins and budget reviews. At the moment, the administrative process in hiring (contract, payment, resources, etc. setup) is a responsibility held by the Core Teams, but could possibly be handed over through the creation of a Core Team.
    For example, if Core Teams want to create a “Talent Team,” to handle the recruiting and administrative process of hiring, that suggestion can come up in the quarterly check-ins with the Steering Committee. Any contributors can suggest a Talent team, who will have to post a proposal to the Org and the Steering Committee will review the proposal to decide to onboard and fund that team or not based on their deliverables.

  • Can members of any of these teams be anons? Or do they all have to have at least some sort of team-public identity?

    Answer: We do not foresee issues with anons holding any of the roles discussed here. We already have a few anon contributors within the CDO and bordumb as the Grants lead. However, these folks have built up a trusted working relationship with the rest of the team and in some cases have revealed their identity to folks within the team, but are still anon to the public. There needs to be a certain level of trust and some level of identity confirmation before we can distribute Otterspace badges to signify they are contributors within the CDO, but this does not mean they have to fully reveal their identity. We can start a conversation with Otterspace to see if they have any ideas for a process here.

General Proposal Comments

  • It seems to be essential to establish a clear mission & vision before going through transition process. How will this being done?

    Answer: The CDO Working Group is proposing an interim Steering Committee to create an initial draft of the mission & vision for 2023, utilizing existing works in progress (collaborative vision document, contributor offsites). Additionally, Apiary’s work aims to help the RadicleDAO develop a mission-aligned approach to ecosystem governance. They will do this by speaking to various stakeholders in the Radicle community and applying learnings from historical and existing governance structures outside of the web3 ecosystem. The goal is to have this work in a good place by March.

  • Only token holders can vote on this proposal, correct? Should we do a more open/public version of this call for them in the future?

    Answer: This proposal in its current state is directed at CDO Contributors, but there will be a formal proposal submitted to RadicleDAO on February 16th (ushered by the Core Dev WG) to formalize the creation of the Core Development Org. This will include the Org Purpose with Annual Vision & Objectives, High level Org Structure and Roles, as well as the total annual budget requested. This complete proposal will be voted on by token holders, therefore there will be a public call to go through the proposal in full.