Really great idea with the poll Alex.
Overall, the proposal looks good to me. But a few comments
- I share @Anthony.Leuts and @Joan_Arus vision on bounties. We should use them wisely to increase output from specific needs, but not for core things within the DAO. This doesn’t mean getting lots of full-time contributors, but indeed focusing on what really matters.
- I have the feeling (not only because of this proposal but also here) that the DAO is growing based on desires instead of needs - meaning, instead of needs surfacing due to projects, products, etc, we create proposals thinking about potential future needs, and then start delivering things that do not deliver actual value to the current state of the DAO. I might be wrong here but just wanted to state my impression.
Why is this under ops and not a design working group?
Those should be heavily coordinated with product teams. Not a problem, just a comment
Love the honesty from all here, Thanks you, providing critical feedback is hard.
I think this is a problem not only in our DAO Ramon but many, we should be goal driven community if there are any other points in the proposal please let me know.
Plan with POAPs will be that it will be a separate proposal. We will simply provide a home in the short term.
I will chat with the team on the bounties and see if we can make a couple of edits as I can see the direction of the polls.
Please keep the feedback coming!!!
that is the plan! My focus is to connect with Martin and Harry and you to make sure that everything we are planning and delivering you guys are 100% in the loop!
I love the Eagle Ops brand and while there is an undeniable need for an encompassing ops Sub DAO I would have recommended teams asking 10k or more a month, especially those formerly funded by the ESD - to deliver their own proposal in line with the practice of setting clearly defined objectives, deliverables/ milestones.
Instead, it seems to me the necessity for overarching and aligned Operations is being used to carry DAO-funded teams with no clarity on what they will deliver and at what cost (beside hours worked) during the next 8 month.
Can anyone of the people that voted yes to the "Do you think the overall Key Performance Indicators are in the right direction? Please quote me three KPI’s - qualitative or quantitative measures of performance or success relative to the DAO funded teams? Because as an example but reflected within every DAO funded team I can see clear
- functional areas: Eagle Capital
- purpose/responsibilities: DAO treasury & payments
- deliverables: Monthly payment of contributor rewards by the 15th of the month
- KPI: 100% on-time delivery of payments
Eagle Capital I have used only as an example because I understand from working with @Ricktik6 (who des a great job) their deliverables and the types of key performance indicators that could apply. For the teams yet to propose but discussed in this proposal, there’s leeway, but for the DAO-funded teams, I have more questions than answers from this proposal.
TL;DR for guild coordination?
Is this a weekly? monthly? seasonal? or an eight-month deliverable? I understand the need for the listed output but how can DAO Ops drive efficiency and effectiveness, sans any clarity of the time and resources allocated to achieve some quantifiable or qualitative end result?
I’m also confused by “Dissemination of Internal Aragon Communications” because I would have thought this was very much the realm of @jessicasmith and the comms team. When I think internal comms, I think the Eagle so what does this even refer to?
I would suggest y’all consider making this an overview of the Sub DAO being established and rework the proposals for every DAO-funded team as per the Community Guild Proposal dGov was established S1 to support community proposals. The ESD members are still here to support community proposals. There was a workshop for this very reason to address S2 proposal planning. I am more than happy to help and given a decent opportunity to contribute or engagement with my offers to support planning - there’s about a day’s work needed for Finance, Legal, Data & DAO Ops to deliver proposals that justify some of the funding requested.
I see Joan has addressed my concerns with the overlap on legal with AA and Ronalds teams, happy to know we haven’t foregone that expertise. But because it’s a bugbear of mine I’m going to repeat concerns on the bounty funding because I believe at the level requested it underpins a lack of planning/forecasting for human, intellectual and financial efficiency and effectiveness.
I see this comment reflected across the board on proposals and it never fails to astound me that being we are still looking for Product Market Fit correct?? -Why on earth is there this idea that we benefit from the continued growth of the contributor base? 21k of bounties only serves to perpetuate the fiction within the DAO Community.
While trillion-dollar teams like Google are slowing hiring and now calling a hiring freeze, why do we think we need to continue to attract and retain endless opportunities for new talent?. Should we not instead get clear on deliverables so we can propose and fund the work that aligns with shared outcomes and focus on taking better care of the people and teams we have.
I have no issue with the level of contributor reward funding requested but we will fail to set teams up for success when contributors do not have clarity of when and what they need to deliver and how success is measured. Maybe this information already exists somewhere and the proposal is simply missing some links?
Thanks for the comment @lee0007 if you have a look at the links in the proposal is may be clearer, we kept the KPIs in the further details as the forum post was going to be come to long. I have listed them bellow though.
If you would like these in the main body of text please let us know. Also if these are still to high level please let us know.
Will be addressing the concerns about bounties early next week with the team as we are aligned on this.
- 100% timeliness to compile AN DAO payments: prepare, sign and execute routine financial transactions within 10 days after voting is done
- 100% timeliness to compile core contributor payments: prepare, sign and execute routine financial transactions by the 15th of the month
- 100% timeliness to compile creator payments (bounties): prepare, sign and execute on a weekly basis
- 100% timeliness of monthly income/expense report & contributor rewards report posted on the forum by the 15th of the Month 21:00 UTC +0
- 100% timeliness on the end of the Season report, posted on the forum by the 15th of December 21:00 UTC +0
- 15th of August, building an expected treasury stream overview for ESD & AN DAO (and maintain it for the rest of the season)
- 30th of Nov, taking care of Dex & Cex operations
- Conducting required data updates
- Approval of new Cex / Dex’s
- 30th of Nov, having a concrete wBTC plan (to execute)
- 30th of Nov Write an ANT buyback plan (depends on Eagle farming)
- 30th of December, Make a yearly budgeting plan
- 30th of Nov, Have a set up for salary guidelines within the DAO
- 30th of Nov, Set up a legal agreement party process
By the end of S2 we will review aforementioned KPIs and set new ones for S3
Yield farming strategy
- 30th of November, write a yield farming strategy, which at least includes:
- The risk appetite of AN DAO
- Mapping several potential strategies, with different risk levels (spread over at least +30 different products)
- A guide on how to put the strategies into practice (e.g. what aggregator is most suitable, what teams are required, and what rules need to be in place to manage this in a decentralized way)
Eagle farming team
- 30th of November, build an Eagle farming team which includes:
- Yield Farming may need to post a new proposal during Season 3
Review, amend and execute legal agreements between AN DAO and 3rd parties.
Ensure that AN DAO is fully compliant with the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction in which its legal wrapper shall exist and where it operates,
Ensuring that AN DAO makes best efforts to not engage in non-compliant activities that might be considered illegal in the majority of jurisdictions it operates in.
Make best efforts to help ensure ANT is not recognised as financial security in critical jurisdictions (Switzerland, UK, Canada, EU, Australia, Europe, US, Singapore). Vetting all the related documents to ensure that there is no investment advice or solicitation of investment.
Provide clear legal strategy and guidance to support business strategy with respect to Aragon Products.
Align legal priorities and resources with network strategy.
Develop the network risk profile and risk management with respect to handling of contributor data.
Manage risk and regulatory approach with respect to the implementation of delegated voting. Individuals involved with governance can often be held legally liable for the DAO’s actions. Hence, preparing a legal strategy for the same.
Develop a compliance framework to enable maximum contributor engagement from most number of jurisdictions. Enable a regime from the legal-finance perspective where contributors can showcase a valid source of income to respective tax authorities (Eg.IRS).
Engaging and coordinating with different legal teams when they provide advice on specialised matters.
Identify and remediate brand and reputation risk exposure with appropriate disclosures.
Revise and draft different legal documents and contracts related to contributors which the DAO requires (specifically when all AA contributors transition into the DAO).
Manage the legal budgeting and expenditure when engaging local attorneys.
- [Fabs] End of Season Survey on satisfaction with payments
- [Fabs] Survey of non-AN DAO members on brand perceptions and strategies for attracting people to contribute to AN DAO and create DAOs using AragonApp
- [Sammie] [continuous] Measuring Discord growth numbers
- [bounty] [continuous] Newsletter analytics
- [bounty] [continuous] Twitter analysis for #ANDAO, #AragonAssociation and others for:
- topic discussion
- Sentiment analysis
- [bounty] [continuous] Analysis of Notion Analytics
- [Sammie] [continuous] Analysis of DeWork tasks and activities
- [Fabs] End of Season Survey on satisfaction from ops
- [bounty] Analysis of ANT trading and holder behavior, including voting, rewards, and staking.
- [bounty] [continuous] Monitoring stats from Discord
- [bounty] measures for Community Experience activities
- Ambassador program
- DAO experts
- Community Engagement
- Culture / Umbrella
- [bounty] How many issues resolved?
- [bounty] What was the general theme of the issues encountered in the DAO?
- [Bounty] [continuous] Monitoring stats from Discord
- [bounty & Fabs] [continuous] Monitoring stats from the Aragon Forum
- [bounty & Fabs] Surveys for governance engagement
- Aragon Product — When the correct timing for the product arrives
- [Julija] Contributing to the dashboard
- [Julija] product metrics
- [Julija] user research
- [Julija] Market analysis — chains, frameworks, etc.
- Voting delegation
- [bounty] Data output a Dashboard which holds all the metrics we are collating together.
- creation and maintainance of a centralized Results, Measurement and Reporting (RMR) Framework that can provide easy and quick overview of Guilds and Squad performance.
- DAO Wide Survery [Fabs and bounty]
- Once per season we are going to conduct a DAO wide survey to evaluate satisfaction with the performance and operation of:
- Guilds and Squads
- Community and culture
- Once per season we are going to conduct a DAO wide survey to evaluate satisfaction with the performance and operation of:
It’s great to have an overview of the direction Ops is heading - whether that’s as a collective Sub-DAO or separate Guilds - but for a financial proposal there’s a lot of information here, that imo is not relevant to the funding request.
Deliverables are 100% what I would expect to see in a half-million dollar financial proposal. I don’t require information about non-funded teams nor details at the KPI level. My advice is that KPIs are best linked out to, yet I saw community guild was asked to re-include KPIs in their proposal by a member of ops so, had to ask…
Full support this team I’m just on this transparency bandwagon and in four months’ time when delegates start looking into the current funding state of the DAO, it would be easier if they can find a simple, clear concise set of the relevant information - which for every funded team to date, required clear deliverables/milestones.
Maybe you guys could have a separate all-encompassing post including the teams that are yet to propose a financial request. It would simplify the proposal and allow for transparency of the objectives and deliverables associated with funded contributors.
Thanks @lee0007 that makes sense, I have pulled them out in to a drop down to make it more clear that they are not a part of the funding proposal but feel the additional context is helpful for people to see what ops is encompassing.
One thing to take into account here is coordination overhead. We shouldn’t duplicate workflows that need “alignment” and “coordination” and essentially create coordination challenges that don’t need to exist. The questions we should be asking are : Is there a need for this? Am I duplicating work that is already being done? Am I filling an existing gap? Is the gap I am filling worth the coordination overhead or is there a more efficient way to fill the gap? (this is happening all over the AA/AN DAO - just picking up on this root issue as its something we all need to consider carefully)
Awesome, thank you for the context @Joan_Arus.
Agree context is helpful
Reiterate that I feel it is 100% reasonable to expect ALL financial proposals at this scale to communicate clear deliverables/milestones to underpin the funding requested. However, with the exception of Finance - the information shared above is still primarily an expanded list of activity as opposed to timebound deliverables.
It should take at most an hour to transform them into SMART deliverables but just wondering who is providing guidance on this? So I will offer what I can glean from the information provided.
Data’s long list of activities can be summarised in four deliverables that can indicate the resource allocation and be reported based on status [not started] [in progress] [complete]
1.1 Guild Performance Analysis, Tracking & Reporting [ 60%]
- Establish Performance Baselines in collaboration w. each Guild Due: -
- Monitoring & Analysis of Guild Performace Due: Monthly
- Report Guilds Monthly Performance Due: Monthly
- Report Guild Seasonal Performance Due: 31 November & 31 March
1.2 RMR Framework & Dashboard [30%]
- Develop a centralized Results, Measurement and Reporting (RMR) Framework Due:
- Develop Data Dashboard Due:
- Ongoing Maintenance Due: Monthly
1.3 S2 DAO Wide Survey [10%]
- Design & Deliver S2 DAO Wide Survey Due: -
- Analysis of survey results Due: -
- Final Report of survey insights Due: 31 November
1.4 S3 DAO Wide Survey [10%]
- Design & Deliver S2 DAO Wide Survey Due: -
- Analysis of survey results Due: -
- Final Report of survey insights from Due: 31 November
Deliverables also establish clear and shared expectations as to what we can expect for 15k per month. Look I know I’m a performance-orientated, and results-driven individual and can be demanding of this from others. I don’t expect that I have the information above right as I’m not in the ops loop here but I hope it indicates the type of clarity of deliverables that imo is required for a 514k proposal cc @Fabs
I’m going to suggest again that this proposal would function better as a Main DAO proposal to establish the Eagle Ops Sub DAO. Why NOT? empower teams to propose and establish guilds now, with each of the teams Eagle Ops encompasses creating their own deliverables-led funding proposals. I understand this is what we are to expect from the AA-funded teams as they move towards a DAO. Could the AN DAO teams not also model that process? Ops is a black box to me so it’s clearly with you guys to decide, just know that I am here to support the DAO teams with proposals if the AA was to choose to enable teams to pursue this path.
Thanks @lee0007 for the comments above, currently reworking the budget with the team so it will drop and the KPIs a getting better defined. Hope to have this complete, it will not move to vote before this is done.
I think the Sub-DAO route is interesting and happy to move that direction, it may be a more efficient way of moving teams in. Will have a think if I can restructure it with a Sub-DAO model.
Proposal has been updated, we have dropped the bounty pool and have allocated two part time contributors to Finance which we assessed will be needed. We decided to allocate these rather than have a larger bounty pool.
We reduced Data, ops and Legal pools as well. Over all the budget has dropped by $95K.
There is also now better definitions on the Data KPIs.
We will consider a Ops sub-DAO at the end of this season.
Look forward to further feedback.
There’s still not a single clear, concise deliverable in this entire proposal let alone Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time Bound (SMART) deliverables. @Anthony.Leuts @ramon @fartunov @daniel-ospina all people I know that typically care about deliverables…
Without deliverables how does Eagle Ops expect to hold any individual or team accountable for the 492k spend? I don’t even see a commitment from this team to report on all these “activities” (searched topic for “report”, no results in the proposal)
I’m sorry I do not understand the aversion to my several requests for transparency and accountability? Operations should be setting the example for coordinated planning to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. We have to date held the DAO to a much higher standards of transparency, accountability and responsibility. …
Disappointed that a proposal of this calibre is being progressed “on behalf” of the DAO contributors named. @Ricktik6 @Fabs @anukriti10 @lion917 is this what you want delegates to read of your ability to plan, propose and operate?
Seriously imo, this proposal undermines the professionalism of everyone named for funding and I would one last time recommend that the teams involved here, take charge of their own future and present proposals worthy of the funding requested. Here’s a couple examples of proposals I have helped set clear deliverables in collaboration with
Can you see the difference? Guys you have everything you need for a great proposal. It is simply a matter of structure and clear communication. Best foot forward people, I do not believe this proposal fairly represents your talent, commitment and contributions to the DAO.
Ive got to agree with Renee on this one. Im not saying this guild isnt needed. We can all agree it is. But this proposal is sub par at best. If any other proposal were delivered in this state it would be absolutely torn apart in this forum. Honestly i feel like some parts of this proposal are riding on the fact that ops is necessary in the dao. Which is resulting in the lack of clarity and quality that others have upheld for the past 9 months. Even after the edits in the links to notion (which is another thing that is in only this proposal, which leads to issues around versioning that havent been pointed out yet) there are still sections that are completely vague. Talking around what needs to be done without actually stating what is going to be done.
I appreciate the effort that has been put in to the proposal by everyone involved. However, I have also reached out to help and even held a proposal workshop that noone from ops came to or participated in async. Which i made available as well. These are things that would have directly assisted with the issues that are being stated here and I dont understand why these tools havent been utilized…
Correction reporting was always included from the beginning of the proposal “We will also continue to report monthly using the ESD template report.” Another paragraph on reporting was added as well. We have also built the tracker that we will be using throughout the season’s for live reporting on progress. This will be the source of truth alongside dework for individual task tracking for the coming seasons: Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
Fundamentally the scope of Ops is very large and agree that any of these proposals could be standalone and request a similar amount of funds to other teams, I would anticipate the cost would increase if this was to occur and provide poor value to the DAO along with increased coordination burden. This is why the KPIs were linked in separate notion pages as each of these could be stand alone proposals in there own rights.
I would like the measurement of success to move towards an OKR system where we aspire to reach high-level goals, rather than set granular tasks which are set to the lowest level where funding is attached.
As a group, we should be aspiring for more and to be trying to reach high-end goals thus the high level goals are highlighted hopefully the table makes that clearer.
I’ve shared this elsewhere when requesting deliverables KPI Sub-DAO Structure — Peter 'pet3rpan'
Regardsless of the level of the goal, people still need to be able to express how/what they intend to deliver to achieve those goals in order to be accountable and my repeated request for deliverables within the proposal (vs outside documents subject to change) is about accountability.
Deliverables are more directly relevant to effective and efficient planning and process, than funding and I may have incorrectly believed Eagle Ops would continue to build upon season 1 proposal to “… maintain operational efficiency across the DAO…” and
Had Ops collaborated in the dGov S2 Proposal Workshop lead by @Shawncubbedge we could have addressed concerns back in July, prior to forum because I am well aware that this 90’s communication method fails to convey that I am in fact a stronger supporter of the proposed team. I have no doubt they do and will continue to deliver. I simply do not believe that this proposal does them justice. More than that, I think the proposal has jeapodised the team’s ability to secure funding and I hope to be proven wrong on this point.
I have just seen that the DAO Ops proposal includes the option to abstain. I have actively sort compliance advice on this matters several times in the past and a vote to abstain counts for neither quorum nor outcome, it is a wasted vote and no advice was provided to advise this fact in your proposal
The Charter is intended for yes no votes only. A position communicated repeatedly in multiple places on the forum by @Compliance Committee Members of which @AClay would be aware
This proposal meets none of the standards established and required of every other team to date including dTech, Community Guild and Executive Sub DAO Members. You are establishing a very clear double stand between what the AA can propose vs what is required of the DAO.
Lack of compliance is not my call to make but I am requesting a veto of this proposal by the @eaglelex @Tayy @ronald_k and if veto’d I hope you will take the opportunity to address the clear double standard and present a proposal to the equal standard required of everyone else, one to which people can be held accountable for the 420k funding requested.
Sorry but I’m not the only person that sees the double-standard I’m just in the shit position of voicing widely held concerns on behalf of DAO contributors.