Keybase Private/Public Communication

DRAFT PROPOSAL

This proposal proposes establishing simple and clear enter/exit rules for private organization and squads channels in the dxdao keybase.

Keybase is the messaging platform we use for internal dxdao communication and it has proven very useful since we started using it two years ago.

Keybase has channels, group chats (like channels but with name, logo, and rules), and groups (group of channels with at least a #general channel). We have a dxdao general group and groups for each squad.

Right now all channels are very public and easy to get into, and we have no rules on who and why can enter a channel and why someone may be forced to leave it.

So the idea would be to leave all channels we have right now in the public category but create a duplicate of some of those channels which only dxdao members have access to, we will still encourage them to share important proposals or initiatives in public channels, but it would be better to have a place where dxdao members can communicate private sensitive information with only-members, and review proposals or initiatives internally before presenting them to the public for opinion.

What’s the requirement to be part of a private organization channel:

  • Have been working for dxdao for at least a month or had passed a trial period.
  • Have an on-chain approved the proposal with no delay higher than 2 months.

For private squad channels the squads would be able to set the rules themselves.

Example

We have a development channel in the dxgov group, which is public, anyone can join, if the dxgov team wants they can create a private development channel where only dxgov on-chain members have access and have a space where they can share private information.

I checked a few channels and this will affect very few users and I think a private space for communication where only approved-members and people who are working for the dao is a very important place and something we require.

Let me know what you think about the idea and requirements to be part of private channels, again, there would be no channels removed! everything would continue as usual but with extra private space for the organization and the squads.

2 Likes

I would support simple and clear guidelines on how to add people or remove people from DXdao team/squad chats.

Though, Augusto, I think it would be good if you were leading by example here. Your most recent worker proposal has not been approved onchain and is now over three months late. I would also be very interested in the input of @Melanie and the ContributorX squad in terms of what they think about feasibility of this. I could potentially see some issues where relevant people might be excluded from chats.

1 Like

You are right, with the rules Im proposing I would not be able to join a private organization channel :sweat_smile:, well…it changes nothing for me since I think this rules are good and should be around those values. This is open for discussion anyways, maybe I should create a poll later to make it easier to decide how much time the workers should have on-chain commitment to be part on private channels?

About relevant people being excluded, we would still have the same channels as we have now, so communication can continue as usual, but some topics can be discussed initially in the private group and security wise I think it is a very important to have a private channel for only-members.

This is already the case as workers already form private groups around initiatives and keep the community up to date on the public channels.

Overall I think establishing simple rules about when someone can join communication channels is good but with the currently proposed rules it discriminates DXD holders and REP holders who are not actively working for DXdao. With Gov 2.0, DXD holders will participate in active governance so preventing them for joining those internal groups now is a step backwards and not forward.

Also, are those rules primarily for Keybase? What about Discord?

Yes, only keybase. We can do it in discord too.

In terms of discriminating dxd and rep holders, we can have organization channels with workers + dxd holders + rep holders. Adding other private space to communicate important proposals before going public.

I think this structure is already in place which is based on trust and not verified by clear rules. What rules would you define for DXD holders and REP holders without active worker proposals?

Cryptographic proofs that they have REP or DXD?

We use blockchain for that reason, to trust crypto and code to enforce rules decided by humans.

Im just proposing to set few rules to have spaces where we can communicate more efficiently and include more people to the discussions they might be interested in.

The rules you currently proposed discriminate DXD and REP holders without active worker proposals. Another issue with introducing Cryptographic proofs that they have DXD is the privacy aspect. I am skeptical DXD holders would like to expose wallets and connect them to an identity. As long as we have no easy solution for those two groups in place I am inclined to vote No on the current draft proposal.

2 Likes

There’s already very little accountability to DXD holders from contributors and contributors have sole control over governance.

Freezing us out further by ejecting us from Keybase is very poor idea, and a bit tone deaf to the frustration DXD holders have been sharing lately @AugustoL.

If you don’t want it to be fully public, token gate it. Contributors, REP holders and DXD holders only.

@0xSpicySoup you misunderstood me, this proposal is just to have a rules for private channels for dxdao worker and contributors, for security and organization purposes, just that.

If you see the proposal it makes no mention of DXD holders, cause they wont be affected by this, there are channels used in keybase for purely communication purposes.

Every action taken by dxdao would still be publicly discussed. And for DXD hoders I think it would be even better to have a dxdao members + DXD holders channel in keybase, maybe we can even decide on rules on who will join these channels and why, or the rules to join/exit a channel can be decided by DXD holders themselves.

My goal here is not to freeze or remove dxd holders, it never was, it is the opposite.

That still seems to be the same end result though. Keybase is currently open. If we have private channels for contributors then that means excluding DXD / REP holders who aren’t taking salaries…

I’m quite active in the DAO, actively vote on most proposals, a DXD, SWPR and REP holder. Actions / issues discussed in a closed channel impact me and I would want to be included there. I’m sure the same is true for other holders.

2 Likes