CIP 1 Governance Proposal: Tech Agnostic

I think we may be getting into semantics now in the sense of naming (and thus structuring) different parts of DAO documentation. Obviously, any level of detail can be included in the project documentation as a whole. But I think it’s better to move from core mission/values/principles to increasing levels of operational/procedural details as (1) the former informs the latter (i.e. it makes it easier to tie things together) and (2) it’s a great way to sequence introducing and onboarding new participants to the DAO when it comes to presenting and consuming information (i.e. you start with a high level understanding of the structure + core mission/values alignment, and then gradually move deeper into specifics as engagement and contributor roles become more specialized/sophisticated). Moreover, the problem with being overly focused on the details of written procedures is that these are much more likely to become inadequate over time (and thus require iteration), whereas the core principles/values tend to be more resistant to change (which is related to the fact that the spirit of the law can override the actual text when it comes to deciding whether something violates “the rules” or not). So my intuition is that commingling the two makes future iteration more resource-intensive. EDIT: Just to be clear, that’s not to say that various procedural details don’t need to be clearly established and version-controlled.

To draw a parallel with traditional governance systems: there’s a difference between establishing whether something violates a fundamental principle/value (ultimately decided in courts), or whether it violates a low-level procedural rule (operational checks and fail safes built into, for example, parliamentary or other organizational proceedings; of course, the latter question can also end up in court but the relevant rules to be checked are often not in the Constitution but in institution/field-specific legislation or even bylaws/guidelines internal to the organizations involved). The analogy may not be perfect but hopefully illustrates the point.

Of course, if existing structures/procedures absolutely require that the preamble to other AN DAO documentation (which is partly how I like to think of the Charter/Constitution) be more specific and detailed, then that’s that. But if the long-term objective is to move to a different structure (from core mission/values/principles to increasing levels of detail), then the link shared is probably as good a resource as it gets at this point in time.

1 Like

Agree in principle. Although such bounties may even be better administered not at the level of the whole DAO but in/by subDAOs that focus on the area the bounty is related to (e.g. some areas may require an ongoing bounty program).




LIVE VOTING Aragon Voice