Since accountability measures are still not integrated in the protocol, I propose we have a norm of the minimum information that financial proposals should provide. They are:
Description - General description of the project.
Alignment - How the proposal contributes to the mission of the Genesis DAO.
Tokens Requested - total budget and breakdown of its usage + amount of reputation
Due Date - Breakdown of the steps to deliver the proposal in the form of milestones with the respective due dates.
The proponents that don’t deliver the work they committed with according to the established due date will be requested to return the funds to the DAO and potentially have their reputation slashed via proposal.
Update - the proposal above was approved by Genesis.
Let’s keep these 4 points in mind when submitting future proposals. Description- Alignment - Budget - Due date
thanks to everyone who participated on the decision making
Gracious simplification of proposal writing requirements. Good for both voters and proposers.
One thing I’d like to add, as suggestion, is that as we stumble upon proposals slightly outside of the approved framework we don’t insta downvote them but rather contact proposers (disquis/doc/telegram) mentioning this framework and what might be missing.
Just did that in this great proposal here.
Livia, I like the direction you started here. i do feel in our current mode of work, proposals are being approved based on general notion and “feelings”, and at a less systematic view of the overall big picture.
sounds like a great idea and Pepo already demonstrated accountability of execution, but at the same time now passing a $9000 worth of ETH to promote this project feels to me like a decision that is not aligned on the prioritization of what we need to gain adoption, at the current phase of the ecosystem, and considering the budget constrains we leave in
I’m thinking of adding the following 4 dimension inside the “Alignment” section to make it more measurable and tangible:
How – Does it significantly contribute to drive adoption and usage to Alchemy? When - Does it have an immediate / short term impact What – Are the specific use cases this proposal will enable Who - Are the users that will directly see the value driven by the implementation of this proposal and will increase Alchemy’s adoption?
I see this as a part of the evolution of GenDAO into an ecosystem fund that is expected to make hard decisions on prioritization based on a wider sense of accountability to how we wisely use the budget we have
I’ve been drafting up a document on Objectives and sub-Objectives for Genesis, which should help in that regard as well. The idea is that every proposal link to at least one sub-Objective once we agree on them.
In addition to the How/When/What/Who questions above, I would love to also include which Objective / sub-Objective the proposal is tied to (which ensures alignment to our mission).
Interesting, but potentially risky
Moving towards budget planning… all you have to do adding numbers to objectives/sub-objectives, and there you go.
I understand it can also be seen differently, more like a tagging system bringing clarity and alignment through categories. But even then, what could be the process for creating/approving this list? updating it? Through proposals? Good ole TCR?
Hey - First post. Much respect to the social and economical progress in which the members of this group’s mission is aimed.
This sounds like - what is currently called - enterprise architecture. EA. However, it goes beyond Enterprises. It can be applied at any level from that of an individual, to an organization of any size, to society, or the universe, physics…
EA is using the logical connections of system and elements within, along with the means of integration design, similar concepts can be applied to … one’s life, your business, organizations of any size and intent…
It enables rapid evolution of large organized systems. Large projects. Many individuals with a central goal.
Rethink the idea of the meta model of the evolutionary system of global progress, and the “value creation system”.
Are you familiar with the Business Motivational Model (BMM)? Check it out.
@eric.arsenault, you are right that Categories / sub - categories are also essential as we move to larger scale budget managed and the need to have better alignment around how we spent it.
I also agree @sillinous (congrats on first post that eventually we do not invent the wheel here - we should adopt existing practices for budgeting, with the difference that here it’s all being done transparently, and everyone has an equal opportunity to propose and make an impact.
Anyone knows good and relevant budgeting tool we should seek to integrate ? after all i’m sure hundreds of them exist, so better take a shelf product that re-inventing from scratch. we can then make adjustment where a DAO needs.
In my view this is critical to any ecosystem fund that looks to deploy large amounts
It makes the overall process more efficient and organized for DAO members to vote on,
The base rules already reduce lot’s of the noise and disorder that exist today
by the way - one of the categories can be “wild cards”, where there’s a budget that has no rule - anything can be proposed there…
What @eric.arsenault suggests is pretty much well aligned to how I think the DAO’s Mind could evolve in the mid-term.
Objectives and sub-objectives can be “sections” in the wiki, and proposals could be done by adding content into the correct “section”.
Regarding what @philh says about lists: with the _Prtcl, you can create new “perspectives” of whole portions of the wiki, so you could have two or more perspectives of, say, the new content of one sub-objective (each perspective with a different list of proposals, maybe with some in common). People would then have to decide which of the two “perspectives/lists” is merged to the “official” one with a vote.
The sum of the cost of each list should not exceed the budget. So its a sort of “budgeting tool”.
What I would like to experiment with, is that the content of the wiki includes the text of the proposals, but also a formal “contribution reward request” so that, if the merge request is accepted, all the proposals it contains are automatically accepted.
Hi @Lior, In the case of the DAO’s Mind I would see this as a problem of information asymmetry/overload and communication timing. The proposal was discussed in different spaces before reaching this point and I think the proposal is deemed as strategic and solving an immediate need by many members of Genesis.
My perspective is that the weight you put on the shoulders of people making proposals should not be excessively large nor bureaucratic. In practice, a lot is happening in many channels (DAOtalk, TG and weekly calls) that serve to identify the “how/why/what/who” of a proposal.
Its a pity there is not a “filter by thread” functionality in TG, or a way to link that TG thread with a DAOtalk post… or a way to store a portion of the weekly call inside the DAOtalk post.
But even then, don’t be mistaken. It will still require a significant amount of effort from anyone to catch-up on any given matter, so the idea that everyone should be able to follow everything is not practical. What we need is a process to leave the correct traces that will let people (those really interested) get the info they need when they need it.
As you can imagine @eric.arsenault, the process of handling proposals as new perspectives of portions of the wiki and then making sense of many existing perspectives of many portions created by many members, each one branching from a different place and merging into another one sounds like a fun UX challenge.
This is why we consider UX as one key aspect of the DAO’s Mind evolution
Thanks for your comment @pepo, what you describe (the lack of ability to track the different communication and discussions, and “What we need is a process to leave the correct traces that will let people get the info they need when they need it.” ) is exactly the reason i’m saying we need some “ground rules” , general guidelines for what the DAO needs to prioritize, so from the first place even if i’m not in the loop, just by reading the proposal itself in Alchemy, i can have an “executive summary” of "how/why/what/who” , so i can directly vote without the need to be constantly connected and figure it out myself (which of course is preferred but being realistic, in a distributed organization such a DAO we cannot expect this to happen, on this i guess we agree)
So that was my general comment on the norm.
The specific case for DAO mind proposal is a separate discussion and is a case specific which i’d love to connect with you on TG to better understand - again through the lens of prioritization what we fund - how this is promoting adoption and usage of alchemy and the stack
And here we always need to remember - the fact we fund X means we do not fund Y (scarce resources), so again the point is to give the DAO the tools to have a birds eye view of how to decide which are the most critical proposal to fund.
Aim - keep it simple
Expected outcome - a framework that helps proposer know what is the expected information needed, and make them already ensure the proposal is aligned to the DAO’s prioroties as its being built into general rules (“budget framework” / “objectives”) that the DAO pre- approves
I have some ideas in mind how to make this, would love to get people’s help and view to promte it