On March 31st, 2022, the Bundled Guild Proposal CIP was proposed, which created eleven (11) CityDAO Guilds, each with funding and facilitators. This CIP can be found at : Bundled Guild Proposal.
The Bundled Guild CIP (mistakenly not numbered, but which would have been CIP 48) was passed by a Snapshot vote under the title “CityDAO Guilds Initiation”, IPFS: #QmS1Msk, Snapshot Number: 14,514,030, and can be found at: Snapshot
Remove all “standalone” full-length proposals that were connected to the “Bundled Guilds Proposal” CIP. This is because the community did not vote on the “standalone” full-length proposals, which were written prior to the vote and attached via hypertext, and which contain some conflicting information.
Dev Guild: Reeves is to be added as a part time facilitator.
Mission Guild is granted the authority to remove inconsistencies, redundancies and unnecessary repetitions and to renumber CIPs in order.
CityDAO Charter Sec. 3.3.1 - “In Good Standing” will be added, stating that: "A citizen is in good standing so long as they have not violated the rules set forth in the Charter and Operating Agreement and in the ‘City Laws’ section of Discord. If challenged, a determination of whether a citizen is “in good standing” will be made by a majority vote of the Guild to which they belong and may be appealed by the citizen. Appeals will be heard by the combined Community Guild and Mission Guild and resolved through a majority vote.
CityDAO Charter Sec. 4.2.1 (b), will be amended to allow all facilitators and co-facilitators to continue in their positions unless there is a vote of no confidence, rather than calling for new elections in all eleven guilds after the first three months, which will be chaotic and inefficient.
CityDAO Charter Sec. 4.3.4 (b), which requires a one week waiting period for CIPs to move from the Discourse Forum to the Snapshot vote, is amended to be five (5) days and, furthermore, this five (5) day period may be lowered or waived entirely on a per-CIP basis through a 75% vote from the Mission Guild.
CityDAO Charter Sec. 4.3.4 (c), which required 100 likes for CIPs to move to a Snapshot vote was previously changed by the Mission Guild to 20 likes. However, this was not codified in the Charter. This will be formally changed and, furthermore, this 20 “like” requirement may be reduced or waived entirely on a per-CIP basis through a 75% vote from the Mission Guild.
Charter section 4.2.1(i), which allows for votes of no confidence should add “co-facilitator” and not be limited only to facilitators.
The #City-Laws section of Discord will be amended to include the following language: “If anyone violates any of the four rules of CityDAO, they may be kicked, muted or banned at the discretion of the moderators. A first ban will typically be for a short time. A second, or more serious first, violation may result in a longer ban. Bans only affect the ability to enter the CityDAO Discord server. They do not in any way affect ownership rights of the CityDAO citizenship NFT, the ability to use the CityDAO Discourse Forum, or to vote on governance issues using Snapshot. All bans can be appealed to the Mission Guild.”
Granting additional authority to the Mission Guild makes CD more republican and less democratic, both in the classical sense, further emboldening the monopolistic nature of the guilds. As such, I am strong against this proposal.
I agree, in that the term “exigent circumstances” is insufficiently defined, so I removed that. However, a vote of 75% ensures that 10 out of 13 members of the Guild would agree that circumstances warrant moving to a vote expeditiously.
@Da3vid can you explain why the mission guild should be able to give bounties at will? Maybe an example of when you might want to do that and why it shouldnt be up for a general CIP?
In my opinion, one situation that might call for offering someone a citizen NFT rather than simply a USDC bounty would be if someone contributed a large amount of time and effort to the project in a way that wasn’t “bountied”. This person would have demonstrated commitment, passion and engagement but would not have done so simply to earn money.
In this case, it doesn’t make sense to retroactively offer USDC, but rather to welcome them as a citizen. I don’t believe that hundreds of people would need to weigh in on this decision. All guilds know if someone is really contributing. They can raise it to the Mission Guild and show evidence. However, I have modified the language to restrict how many NFTs are available and the votes required to bounty them.
There are ways to quantify contributions as you’ve described such as Sourcecred.
I have read the info I could find on sourcecred and watched their video. I’d actually love to set up a call with Dandelion Mane to discuss how, because having grain based on number or likes, or number of comments likely wouldn’t work when we need it to be based on viability of content or reasonableness and application of content, while including use of language so that no one can write offensive messages and earn cred. I love the project’s concept though, and would like to consider whether it might be beta tested, maybe with the education guild.
David, thanks for putting this together.
I’m in support because I believe these improvements will help reduce bureaucracy and help the DAO get more things done.
- Right now, CityDAO guilds are a loose confederation with little structure and some things fall through the cracks because no guild is responsible.
- The 100 Likes requirement has caused folks to rage quit the DAO because they said it was too bureaucratic and builders don’t want to spend time doing politics.
- Right now, the Mission Guild is basically powerless and doesn’t have a clear mandate. I’d love to see the mission guild become a cross guild facilitator and fill in the gaps when other guilds cannot.
I am in support of this proposal
Thanks for posting this @Da3vid. I’m in support of these changes as I believe they will lead us to be more productive as a group, without sacrificing the efforts we’ve made to decentralize.
In support of all parts of this proposal except item #8. Comments below / request for modification.
- Five Citizen NFTs per guild per month is too high a number. We should start with something lower like 1-2 and see what contributions merit such a reward. The number can be increased by future CIP if needed.
- “high-level contributions” is too loose a term. These contributions should be defined / categorized in some capacity as a part of the proposal so that Citizens can understand what type of contribution may merit such a significant reward.
- In cases where the Mission Guild votes to distribute a Citizen NFT for contributions to the DAO, the relevant Guild Facilitator should write (in bullet points) the details of the contribution and why it is deserved.
@Da3vid one question on the likes… is it 20 total across all comments etc, or 20 likes on the main post?
Would you recommend removing this part (#8) altogether, or redrafting?
My understanding is that it was 20 likes on the main post. Otherwise, people might be liking comments that say how much they hate the main proposal.
Would recommend removal from this CIP unless we can finish up my suggestions before hand, or if others think the suggestions are unnecessary.
Mission guild is working exactly as intended.
But I agree with the other points Scott made and support this change.
I have removed the section that says the Mission Guild may award Citizenship NFTs as bounties. That may be introduced in a later CIP at a later time.
@Da3vid can you please clarify / define “administrator” in # 9?
I removed the word “administrator” and left it only to the moderators.