Love the focus and agree that this shall have the highest priority.
I’d suggest to add generous bounties from the treasury for the successful completion of this project to make it easier for participants to commit a bigger chunk of their time towards this super critical project.
i think we need enough vote, more than 30% or 40%?
Are there examples of other DAOs using this structure, particularly electing members to a leadership team? Seems relatively benign on paper, plus I like democracy and I especially like the idea of figuring out new models for democracy in this space. But elections bring campaigning, campaigning brings factionalization… You could see candidates campaigning as a 5-5 slate (elect us, we’ll select these members), or “political parties” forming around key issues. Again, none of that is a reason not to do this, I’m just curious about how other DAOs have handled it.
In order to bring this great idea to life, we need to take the necessary steps for community to be more active as soon as possible.
Is it necessary for us to make sure that the Council is made up of people from different areas, countries and backgrounds？Or is it really matter?
I am also curious to learn more about how this ends up working. I believe the Charter / Operating Agreement should dictate the structure and function of the Council. I also believe that the Council should ratify these documents. It’s a chicken and egg problem that would require more trust in the inaugural Council from us Citizens.
Personally I would like to see the future of the Council as being entirely elected. The goal here is setting a sane path towards that (more decentralization).
This is a good point. On one hand I want to see things moving quickly, but on the other it is the holidays. We could go with Snapshot vote starting Monday Jan 3rd. What does everyone else think?
These are great questions that we have to keep asking ourselves. Most DAOs are using purely direct democracy (people only vote directly) or representative democracy is gaining more steam (like ENS, vote for yourself or delegate someone else to have your votes).
No form of democracy is perfect, they all come with pros and cons. Each DAO has to weigh its different needs and select what works best. Any system that creates politicians (through elections or delegation) has the cons you mention. Humanity recognized this early and experimented with concepts like sortition, but they also bring their own cons.
The reason I believe representative democracy is the best for CityDAO today is outlined in the blog post The Foundation of CityDAO. In short, the complexity of designing our foundation (Charter/Operating Agreement) requires a high level of participation and understanding. When you take that and combine it with the size of our DAO now I don’t think other approaches will be successful.
For the future I see CityDAO with a more complex democracy than most DAOs. Likely implementing different forms of democracy in different areas. We are always going to have hard constraints on what we can do in the physical world, and we are always going to need representatives to operate with legacy organizations (I guess I shouldn’t use always, but at least for decades). Our vision is also going to require specialized areas inside the DAO (like a DAO of DAOS). This is why the Charter & Operating Agreement are so important! As a DAO we will need to find the middle ground of decentralized ownership with protections for the DAO itself.
Great initiative. This is definitely what we need to prioritize right now.
Just my 2c
This is very possible. The future structure of the Council could take many forms (set by the Charter). I could see a structure where different committees (legal, land, dev, etc) form.
I think eventually yes, but the wise path is gradual.
I think December 27th is fine. This is only the vote to authorize the creation of a Council, not the actual Council Elections. Snapshot also takes ~5 days to complete, plenty of time for someone to see the vote. I’d consider this a state of emergency for the DAO and moving things along is essential. It might ruffle some feathers, but if that’s what has to happen to keep things moving so be it.
I like the sentiment behind this proposal. I.e. Bring high level focus and urgency to the charter/operating agreement.
May I ask exactly what is meant by:
Ratify the CityDAO Charter (previously referred to as the Constitution)
Does this mean to get a charter approved via a snapshot vote?
And for:
Implement the DAO LLC Operating Agreement
What does that mean exactly? Apologies I’m not an expert in this area.
Just a quick note to add my support for this.
I think 20 is a large council, but hopefully it will function well in practise.
I think ratifying the Charter refers to proposing it to the DAO and yes, passing a Snapshot vote. @Justin should confirm though.
As for the Operating Agreement, this would essentially detail what citizens’ status is from a legal perspective. The majority of this would come from our lawyer, but the Council would advise on how citizenship should operate in practice.
Agree with Greg. Let’s stick to Dec 27th.
That’s great, and I believe we share a common goal. “Sane,” however, is a subjective term. I think what you’re referring to is decentralizing methodically so the DAO does not suffer. With this I agree wholeheartedly. I think the core team has done a fine job steering this behemoth ship and I think their presence, in whole, on this first iteration of the council is well deserved if not imperative.
However, what you’re proposing gives the 10k “citizens” (or seemingly about 5k individuals) who put in .25 eth or more to make this all financially possible 25% representation on the governing body that is going to set the course of the organization from here on out. No matter your hopes for the future, or @greg your concern about 25 council members being too many (which I totally agree with), I don’t think 25% is the right ratio even at the outset.
Furthermore, I worry about appointing outsiders, especially if we risk bringing in some of the same web3 influencers you see at the top of every cultural / non-technical DAO (check out the nepotism accusations against Audius / FWB to get a sense of what I worry about, whether said accusations are true or not). What CityDAO has done so well is set itself apart as a serious organization, with a meaningful mission that could have a hugely lasting impact. We should continue that tradition by working from the inside out, trusting those 10k citizens who invested in the project, and being a beacon of how a DAO can decentralize quickly and function well without relying on the current web3 elite class (which in and of itself is a sad notion in a movement that tries to eschew such things). I’m not saying you’ll ultimately do that; what I’m saying is the citizens won’t have enough say in the matter.
I recommend amending the proposal to elect 10 current citizens to the council, which equates to 50% representation. From there, we can appoint CityDAO members or outsiders to advisory positions in relevant areas of expertise. Think of it as a cabinet to advise the 20 voting members of the council. We can figure out how to compensate those advisors so their time is worth it. I frankly do not worry about finding 10 committed, skillful citizens within the current citizenship to elect. Given my experience with our community and the web3 community at large, there are probably more brilliant people among us than in most nations’ governing bodies. Hopefully the voters choose wisely in terms of electing a diverse council, which, as @luffy54 mentioned, is important. But if we fall short in a couple of areas, the advisory board can fill in the gaps.
Thank you again @Justin for your proposal and for your commentary. I know we share the same goals. It’s just a matter of what the critical first steps are, and I’m asking for democracy to take a bit more of a lead. What that, I’d love to hear some folks’ thoughts on this proposed amendment.
I don’t think the appointed council members are meant to be outsiders. At least, my interpretation was they would also be citizens, just citizens appointed by the core team rather than elected. I think part of the reasoning behind this is that dedicated, knowledgeable citizens that aren’t as good at the “popularity contest” of an election can get a seat at the table. However, this could be misused if it were a case of the core team vs citizens and the core team wanted to appoint some easily swayed members. Luckily, I don’t think we have this problem and we are all pretty well aligned.
If my interpretation is wrong and the appointed members are supposed to be outsiders, I would agree with this amendment. We should most definitely not be pulling in outsiders to such a critical position when we have such an incredible talent pool within our “borders”.
The proposal says appointed members can be either citizens or outsiders. I was expressing concern with the latter. I would feel better if the appointee pool were limited to citizens only, and there were some agreed-upon framework. One idea: the existing council outlines each role / discipline they’re trying to fill, and they appoint one person per discipline. The DAO can vet each appointee’s credentials and we hold a simple yes / no approval vote for each one.
This does not solve the 25% representation issue, but it gets closer.
The intention is that the Council would both draft and implement both the CityDAO Charter and Operating Agreement. Meaning it would not be a Snapshot vote. Once the Charter is in place then we would begin the democratic process (such as Citizen voting).