What you’re describing sounds a lot like top-down leadership to me.
Most of it makes sense but we clearly need more facilitation skills and facilitative leadership to say the least. Otherwise we’re just making corporaitons on chain with the same level of soul crushing disempowerment for contributors
Echoing @lee0007 comment here. A good practice for the future could be to break down these sorts of proposals into steps.
As @mlphresearch suggested, execution needs strategy and strategy needs a mission. Same concept here where outlining the basic direction and getting that agreed first ensures we’re not having at the same time a discussion around the details and around the overall direction.
I’d suggest trimming this down, getting a basic outline passed and then working on the details. Otherwise, this whole process is based exclusively on those with an extremely high bandwidth (likely excluding most AA and DAO members, unless they’re being paid to work on Governance or have a strong personal agenda).
And one could argue that’s ok (I hope you see the issue with an undemocratic process too, this is not a judgement of your values but more something I’ve sadly seen too often in Web3), but the end result is a lack of buy-in and deeper problems down the line.
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful feedback! I’m taking your comments into account to inform how we move forward. With all your feedback and insight, we have a strong start on a delegated voting plan.
Due to the complexity of the current document and in an effort to simplify the iteration process, here are my next steps:
I’ll isolate the pieces of this proposal that directly affect the current Charter and draft a brief amendment. I’ll consult with the ESD and dgov to make sure I follow the correct amendment procedure, including getting community feedback.
I’ll aggregate comments and share separate proposals to build on the Charter amendment, including compensation, elections, and tech. This will keep the Charter amendment itself simple and clean, with more detailed specifications kept separate. Again, I will share those publicly here for feedback and expect to have multiple drafts of each document.
Thanks again for your helpful feedback. Looking forward to sharing the next iteration of these documents and continuing to hear from you! To work on this subject or share private feedback, message me @Samantha Marin #8487 on Discord.
A couple of additional questions/ideas to consider for the next iteration:
Should all delegations automatically disappear at once or should delegations decay in parts over time based on their starting date? All delegations disappearing at once may easily create a “voting vacuum” and thus temporarily but radically change the dynamic of passing proposals. On the other hand, all delegations disappearing at once would instantly put the DAO on its toes and concentrate attention.
Should delegate compensation be tied to some core performance metrics, in addition to a public commitment to follow the Code of Conduct (e.g. participation in votes, engagement on the forum, communication with delegators)?
Totally agree with this statement. If Aragon wants to be a DAO then be a DAO. We keep saying that only x amount of people cant control a 200million dollar treasury…
There are currently around 60 people in the AA and another 30-40 contributors in the DAO. Thats around 100 people who have a stake in what is happening here.
If we’re going to “decentralize” Aragon but with the same people who were leading it in the first place are we really decentralizing? Or is this just happening so the public will see it happening? Because that’s kind of the vibe im getting right now from all of this.
I totally understand the risks of decentralizing a treasury with low governance participation. However, if this is the case then why are we rushing this process???
If we are just creating a different top-down system under the guise of decentralization, then why not save all of us a bunch of headaches and keep it the way it is? The “whales” will keep their power and the employees won’t have to deal with the stress of proposals and everything else and will be able to focus on what they’re doing.
I understand this is a bit late in the process, but to be honest all of this is a bit silly at this point. I’m here for it and i support Aragon regardless because i believe in what we’re doing here but let’s drop the front and be real about what’s happening.
Personally, I don’t think we should dissolve all delegations at once. There is a high level of context that comes with and is necessary for a role like that and having these roles on a rolling schedule of sorts will help ensure that this context continues on with the leadership while also helping keep the narrative of decisions steady as well.
I agree. But I also think delegations should not be indefinite by default. A potential middle ground would be to let delegations decay in parts / gradually.
No definitely not indefinite. But we could set a term limit and then stagger the delegates. So that we don’t turn over everyone at once. This would be difficult to start, since everyone will start at the same time. But once we get going would be pretty simple. In the first cohort of delegates there could be a few who will stay on longer to begin this cycle. Then after that first cohort we default to whatever term limit is set in place.
