Rather than repeat the Minimum Viable pathway, as taken with the Charter. I suggest we take the time to get this right, upfront.
As we’ve seen with the Charter, minimum viable options that require further clarification create ambiguity which effectively undermines governance. Instead, we can seek to establish unassailable, collective governance legitimacy as opposed to repeating the past.
The ESD have secured funding for Charter adaptation. Agree with @b3n that Charter change requires at the very least
However, as DAO should we not aspire to a cross-discipline, highly coordinated and deeply accountable community to naviagate from current state to optimal and battle-hardened governance that we can safely steward tresasury to, in time. This is why I am here…
Rather than simply accepting, that the criteria proposed here will provide the best outcome (which they may well prove to) - what I counter is that we empower the community to learn and model, debate and investigate and vote on the whole range of parameters that will impact the future of the Aragon Network DAO governance. A collective consensus-building process akin to the TEC Common Upgrade would also ensure the desired result:-
This is imo the optimal path to unassailable, decentralised, governance legitimacy and we already have much of what we need to succeed! Excited
Everything about this conversation resonates with me and IMO we have and great ally here in @GriffGreen and the opportunity to build the DAO from the groundup in partnership with other ecosystem collaborators based on tested and proven process,
@GriffGreen I would love the opportunity to talk with you with the intention to develop a proposal to build community governance from the ground up including TAO voting if this is what ANT holders want to support.
We have the fantastic Aragon manifesto but imo a key part of the decentralisation process should be to raise awareness and facilitate discussion about the MVV for the DAO. I see MVV as something that should seek input from every community member - sure it is a massive undertaking - but worth it for it’s ability to build collective consensus and shared understanding of the DAO’s raison d’etre. Is this the type of learning and experimentation that @Sixto5 might be interested in leading?
Understand this could slow us down a few months
Just to be clear @mlphresearch I 100% support the need to decentralise and will actively participate in any team working towards this goal. Yet in raising this need you’ve seeded a super important conversation and opportunity to build this right from the outset (now) as opposed to rushing through a vote (which would likely succeed) but would not help us build the social aspect of the DAO like a more time consuming but incredibly powerful, ground-up and collective Governance process can. I don’t see these processes as being mutually exclusive but complementary, if we move this proposal to vote I may support it as one means towards decentralisation but I already favour and will actively strive for the social-collective approach.