Hey, thought I would weigh in here since I’m from OtoCo and can probably speak on some of the technical and legal limitations.
As @alibama said, it’s pretty difficult to “wrap” a DAO in its entirety. It’s possible sometimes, with very small DAOs.
But Aragon and OtoCo can work together to bring entity management to web3. Here’s one idea:
Let’s say Example DAO of 4 people creates an OtoCo LLC (via multisig for low trust or single sig if you have plenty of trust).
LLC can have its “shares” be a certain Aragon governance token and all holders are considered members of the LLC. So you’re a member of Example DAO, and you’re also a member of Example LLC.
Now, for LLCs to add members, make big commercial decisions, remove members, acquire assets, etc. these things often require consensus among members. All of that consensus could be reached on Aragon (or any other DAO management platform). So what you’re left with is an OtoCo LLC where Owner/Shareholder Meetings, Member Voting, Meeting Minutes, etc, is done via Aragon instead of paper, pen, and zoom meetings.
Thanks for the clarification Michael - it is really helpful!
My previous understanding was that the Example LLC members are the multisig signers, not the token holders and those two groups are not necessarily the same.
The notion space provides no rationale for choosing these languages
What is your best estimate of a metric to determine whether it is worth allocating further resources towards multilanguage efforts to avoid sunk cost situation where we go “oh well we have some documents now in Spanish, let’s keep translating”, and start offering support and start a blog and a separate telegram and so on and so on without a validation if there is actual need
Please link the respective spaces where this progress is documented
Contingent on responding to the above I give my support for release of funding 3/3.
Another discussion with @brent is that since Season 0 one of the objectives of the guild was to professionalize the support role. We are nearing the end of season 1 and this is still not live. I understand there is some consensus and understanding across current guild members about process and scope but having this documented is still lacking:
which type of questions does support answer and what requests are outside of its scope
which types of questions are escalated or handed over to other guilds or directed to external resources
e.g. (my examples might be completely off-base, but they are here to illustrate the point)
Someone comes and asks to connect a Gnosis Safe to a Client based DAO?
Someone has a problem with their Client DAO and we have determined the problem is with the Polygon network, how do we proceed?
Someone comes enquiring about conviction voting or NFT-based census
For these past two seasons to be considered a successful experiment and to have confidence in the Main DAO funding, the guild should be able to demonstrate some professionalization of the function
The notion space provides no rationale for choosing these languages
Not sure why we are discussing this in the forum. I thought we resolved this on a call we had when I gave you a link to a notion page on the rationale for choosing these languages that you had already commented on June 3rd and I also explained the move to go to Spanish with you which you then understood. What you did point out is that the conclusion to our findings could be explained a little better, I updated the notion page for this… https://www.notion.so/aragonorg/User-Tech-docs-Translation-7fcb376f892d4413a2833be479fb50ae
What is your best estimate of a metric to determine whether it is worth allocating further resources towards multilanguage efforts to avoid sunk cost situation where we go “oh well we have some documents now in Spanish, let’s keep translating”, and start offering support and start a blog and a separate telegram and so on and so on without a validation if there is actual need
This proposal says nothing about allocating further resources or to keep translating, it only says two languages will be translated, end of story. The decision to move forward with a language past documentation is a separate discussion that is out of scope of this report. I have never heard anything about an Aragon blog or Telegram in another language.
Thank you for the clarification - much appreciated!
Also to make it crystal clear, the update happened yesterday (after the statement to which you are responding) although our discussion referred took place on 28th of June
I don’t think this is fair at all compared to what dTech set out to do since its inception last year and dTech is far beyond an experimentation phase. Professionalism is definitely not the word to use here. Writing down what requests are outside of dTech’s scope is important, but a reason for the DAO to not have confidence in the dTech team after all the progress they have made is brutal.
dTech is a passionate and driven team that has consistently executed on many initiatives with success, provides solutions not problems, brings a huge amount of value for the DAO… and has room for improvement like updating the Notion page to have a note about dTech’s support scope.
To clarify, as it seems my message is poorly perceived.
I am not saying dTech is not doing a good job, I am saying that defining the scope in a transparent and replicable manner is an essential deliverable we want to see. It will empower other guilds within Aragon and the web3 space to replicate the dTech success.
The entire industry is an experiment, the AN DAO is an experiment, not sure why the word experiment would call negative associations. Being aware of the experimental nature of our work provides a safer space for us to recognize when we make mistakes and be open and transparent about those.
Also for the sake of transparency towards the dTech team. One of the reasons for having such structure and clarity around the scope of work is the idea for the guild to potentially start offering support services to other DAOs from way back when
Have tangible results from collaboration with “like services” guilds in other communities - Completed Monthly
dGov proposal
Decentralized ceramic and spruceID
Bi weekly call transparency and auto transcription - In Progress
Call transparency - Completed
Auto Transcription - In Progress (have not found an auto transcription tools to deal with the variety of mics, sound settings, accents, etc. in such a diverse community)
Increase contributor engagement having at least 3 long term active contributors - Completed 31/7/2022
Retained 3 long term contributors (aakansha#9163, tony.stark#5145, Camel Pavel#1004)
Set backup delegations which shadow other delegated roles within the guild - Completed Monthly
Additional deliverables
Completing the review of and integrating developer documentation into GitBook so both user and developer documentation are in the same format
Defining technical support scope with an infographic shown on our WIKI page.
Using Dework and collaborating with the Dework team, keeping up to date with new developments, functionalities and features to prepare for DAOwide adoption - Ongoing
Evaluating third party integrations for further collaboration here.
Finished bounties
Testing UX (User Experience) dTech Support (DTG.P1.M3.N1) - Completed
Proofread Tech Docs Part 1 (Fundamentals + Client)- Native English Review (DTG.P2.M4.N2) - Completed
Tech Doc. II Part (Govern/Voice/Vocdoni/Court) - Native English Review (DTG.P2.M4.N3) - Completed
@lee0007 thank you for reminding me using the correct EOS report format. I have tried my best to conform as the dTech Guild executed 35 bounties in Season 1. I have edited the post, please have a look at your convenience and let me know if it is missing anything else. @daniel-ospina I have checked all links and they are all working from my end, thanks for pointing out the problem with the WIKI link. Please let me know if you still see it as broken.
Wow, great to have this summary and to see the extent of the technical documentation work undertaken. You guys fulfil a mission-critical role for Aragon and the DAO
Keep being Gold 1/3 approved
I love the bounties report although it also looks like a lot of work. Would be great if someone had an idea for a less time-consuming way to do it. hmmmm…
@daniel-ospina Funny you mentioned that… we are working on a way to automatically grab this stuff and put it into a nice report. Something other guilds could possibly use if it works out. Nothing official, just trying to save ourselves some time and make it a clean process.
Much appreciated, Spectra! This balance between clarity of reporting and detail is pretty spot on. 3/3
A few questions:
Is the migration from HelpScout to HubSpot completed?
I think the link might lead to a brainstorming document, not the final version - for example “Bug resolution from bounty program” appears twice, and the level of support is not defined (what is the difference between “investigatory, partial, supported”).
Now that the scope is clear, could you please share monthly stats on the total volume of tickets during the season (as well as tickets in scope, i.e. excluding “cross-promotion”/“listing offer” spam and people looking for unrelated to the guild (e.g. legal) help
Is the migration from HelpScout to HubSpot completed?
Hubspot has been setup since a long time ago. The migration was never in scope of Season 1, it was only an extra deliverable. Helpscout and Hubspot are both running in tandem as both can be used at the same time so it is really not a migration. For season 2 we will be using Hubspot.
Defining technical support scope with an infographic shown on our WIKI page.
A new version will be released this week that we have already edited. This infographic will continue to evolve as we release new products and new support issues arise.
