This proposal addresses the very core of CityDAO. It asks for consensus on forming an inaugural CityDAO Council (replacing the Core Team) with a clear mandate; Draft and ratify the CityDAO Charter and DAO LLC Operating Agreement. These will be the pillars of the foundation that we will build on.
We desperately need to zoom out and address this now. This is the formal proposal and specification.
Create a new CityDAO Council that replaces the Core Team
Staff the inaugural Council with 20 members:
Anyone from the core team that wants to accept a temporary declaration of commitment
Core team is currently 10 members
Commitment declaration to be drafted separately
5 are elected immediately by Citizens
All candidates must be CityDAO Citizens.
Election will be coordinated by the Council to conclude in less than 30 days
Remaining (after elections) are appointed by the Council at their discretion.
Appointed members must be CityDAO Citizens (hold a Citizen NFT)
The Council will have 30 days (after election) to
Ratify the CityDAO Charter (previously referred to as the Constitution)
Implement the DAO LLC Operating Agreement
The Council will have the power to put the Charter and Operating Agreement into effect WITHOUT any further approval from Citizens.
The inaugural Council will focus on nothing else until the Charter and Operating Agreement are in-place.
The Council will have 30 days (after elections conclude) to ratify both a CityDAO Charter and DAO LLC Operating Agreement. If they fail to do this the Council will be automatically dissolved.
Current multisig signers will NOT turn over or modify the multisig in any way until BOTH a CityDAO Charter and DAO LLC Operating Agreement are in place.
Council positions will be limited in term with exact details to be part of the CityDAO Charter.
If a council member leaves before the Charter and Operating Agreement are in effect an election will be held to replace them.
If 30 days has lapsed and the Council has not ratified both a CityDAO Charter and DAO LLC Operating Agreement then the Council will be automatically dissolved.
the Council will have 30 days (after an election of or an appointment of the 20th member)
in order to specify the starting of the period. There might be some person/people appointed after the election, so I think we should add this to prevent possible confusion.
However, if the goal of this clause is to guarantee that the period will start “immediately after the election” (regardless of when the final person of the council is appointed–in case there are still fewer than 20 after the election end). It can be phrased like
the Council will have 30 days (after the end of the election period)
I think motivation and the rationale wise it looks good. I would like to know more about operation structure and function of members in the council. This will be what makes new council different than the current management.
For example ; Will selected members be positioned like spokespersons for community or have same function/rights as the core team members. Will there be a voting mechanism etc…
I am in favor of this proposal in general. I’d like to see a greater percentage of elected members, which probably means limiting appointed members to 1-2 and electing 8-9 members, as I believe the core team deserves to be automatically instated if they choose. Another solution would be to increase the total council to 25 members, 10 of whom are elected. A lot of people have allocated a lot of time and resources to this DAO and the 10k citizens should have more than 25% representation, especially when 25% representation could potentially go to outsiders and 75% of the total body is unelected (which starts to feel out of the spirit of a decentralized organization)
Seems to me this is referring to the Council being dissolved if Council is unable to ratify Charter + Ops Agreement, ie; Council failed so need to re-elect or re-think the process if it was a factor outside of elected Councils control
I have listed some ideas inspired by Stack Overflow’s (the largest online community for programmers) moderator election process. (2021 Stackoverflow Moderator Election Link)
All nominees will construct a small introduction to describe why they might make a good council member. They can mention to their posts in discord/forum or any contributions they have made.
Nominees’ introductions will be listed in a comment-enabled medium so the citizens will be able to comment and ask questions to them. (Commenting is disabled when the election phase starts at StackOverflow)
Citizens/Current core team can create a list of questions, a questionnaire for nominees.
Expected common soft skills can be added to the announcement.
Patient and fair
Leads by example
Shows respect for their fellow community members in their actions and words
Open to some light but firm moderation to keep the community on track, and resolve uncommon disputes and exceptions
A note about the date @Justin shared,
isn’t Dec. 27th an early date, since lots of people are on holiday or about to leave for a holiday because of the Christmas?
Great step in the right direction! I do like the idea of having some Council members be elected, and some be appointed. However, I don’t think that Council should have full discretion over the appointees. There should at least be some form of community veto of a specific appointee, even if it would be very unlikely to use this veto anytime soon (this is all about laying the foundation for the future, so build in checks and balances now). But I do like how appointees do not have to be Citizens, and this potentially gives an incentive for non-Citizens to contribute (if I’m reading this correctly).
Also, a Council any larger than 20 would probably be too big, I think 20 is stretching it a bit already, even if I like the proposal otherwise. Perhaps in the future, more of the Core team spots become elected positions (~10, overall size of 15) and we phase away the automatic spots for Core team (which the assumption that they will continue to be elected if warranted).