Announcing: the Aragonboarding Working Group

Aragonians,

As most of you well know Aragon Fundraising is approaching mainnet full speed. As Aragon Black we initiated an onboarding program for external projects to express interest and detail out their use cases & mechanisms. We have received ~40 applications following our public call for submissions from both prominent projects in the space and rogue mechanism hackers with pretty interesting proposals. As announced at my previous post on the subject, we will be selecting a handful of the applicants to provide extensive support.

Which brings me to the announcement of today’s post.

In order to demonstrate ecosystem wide coordination, provide learning transfers and utilize the “gateway app*” strategy, we are initiating the Aragonboarding Working Group, effectively pulling together the Flock teams to coordinate around common objectives. Our efforts will be a proof of concept and a learning opportunity to lay the groundwork for inter-Flock coordination.

We could define the raison d’être of the WG as:
Navigating the project leads through the Aragon architecture, helping them reach optimal design specifications and introducing them the full capacity of the Aragon apps.

The participation to the WG is only for Flock members at this time. In conversation with @LouisGrx and the WG members we decided that it would be both strategically responsible and well-intentioned at the same time for us to maintain this WG both in public and flock domains. In the public domain; we will announce partnerships, receive applications and publish successful implementations, while in the flock domain; we will discuss specific projects perceived impact & benefit for the Aragon ecosystem as well as handle effective role assignment and coordination. Inspired by the WG specifications by @light we are committed to decentralizing and increasing the transparency of the on-boarding process as it pertains to the Working Group’s operations. Although with similar considerations to the AA, I believe untimely efforts towards that direction can be very costly, especially with procedures of strategic nature(less so with OS dev).

I’m excited to share the news with the Aragon community and would really appreciate your thoughts, questions and comments:)

p.s: We decided to keep this form open for submissions, so if you know a project which is/could be interested in Aragon Fundraising, link 'em up :black_heart:

*gateway app strategy refers to the general attitude we have towards onboarding of projects as Flock teams. Utilizing unique Aragon applications as entry points, our aim is to expose the users & designers to the full-fledged potential and network effects of the Aragon app ecosystem. I discussed my views in an earlier post on what makes Aragon such a unique platform for mechanism designers and this strategy has everything to do with maximizing that potential.

Thanks to @LouisGrx for his diligent assistance for making this WG worthy of Aragon’s values & @light for laying them out in advance. And to @lkngtn & @stellarmagnet for making us feel like one big team already.
:eagle:

10 Likes

Hey there,

Awesome to see this first Working Group officialized! We can feel the great amount of positive energy around the Aragonboarding WG! :metal:

Side note: we are working on a standard to define and report about working groups, as well as a central place to have them listed. I still have to sync on that with @light, and I hope we can issue a post about that next week. Looking forward to seeing new WGs revealed soon :blush:!

2 Likes

Hey there,

Let me come back on one thing I’ve said on private and public instances of a same WG. During a discussion I’ve had recently, concerns were raised about having private working groups officialized as Aragon Working Groups. Indeed, doing so we would be setting a precedent for Aragon to have Working Groups that work as Black boxes. i.e. The community knows that they exist, they can be sizable, but nobody -but the members- know what happens inside them. This would be contrary to the ethos and best interest of Aragon and the community. On the contrary, we will probably want as many collaborations as possible to be happening publicly so the community can participate and transparency is fostered.

Therefore, while some discussions necessarily have to remain confidential and could happen in private conversations, private working groups would probably not be officialized on the Aragon Wiki nor would we create standards for them.

I think the private part of this Aragonboarding WG falls into that category and maybe it should be kept as a Flock conversation rather than an Aragon WG. To keep it simple, the main difference with what is said above is that the private conversation would not be officialized as an Aragon WG.

Let me know how it sounds. More info on WGs very soon :slight_smile:

1 Like

Sounds good to me.

The concerns are valid. Operationally it seems like a semantic issue for a bureaucratic framework/precedent.

I also wouldn’t want to block the on-boarding effort from becoming a WG because of my own considerations* so if anyone would like to present a format which is both public and applicable for this effort, it’d be awesome to start a conversation around it.
Otherwise, we can call it something else which signals its organizational nature. Maybe, Aragonboarding Flock Conversation :))))

*Noting that I have shared my concerns with the Flock members and there was an apparent consensus on having a public channel while keeping the operational side limited to flock members.

The concerns are valid. Operationally it seems like a semantic issue for a bureaucratic framework/precedent.

Mostly agree on that point! The slight operational difference is that these private groups will not beneficiate any communication or structuring support from the Association while public ones could (ex: being published in the Aragon Wiki).

Otherwise, we can call it something else which signals its organizational nature. Maybe, Aragonboarding Flock Conversation :))))

Definitely, that’s the spirit. May sound a bit stupid but may make a difference at some point.

*Noting that I have shared my concerns with the Flock members and there was an apparent consensus on having a public channel while keeping the operational side limited to flock members.

Perfect then, sounds great! :smiley:

1 Like