This proposal is a follow up on CIP-62.
It aims at embracing CityDAO as a Factory and a more project oriented approach to allow Citizens and Contributors to propose and manage project using CityDAO as the factory to do so.
Check out the full proposal here: CIP-63 Project Empowerment - Google Docs
Please note: this is a working document and there are some links missing.
Hey I actually really like this. I have to think a little more about how you’ve proposed the guilds to be involved, but I LOVE LOVE that this makes it easier to focus on projects. It seems like projects are infinitely more digestible to regular citizens if you want to see what CityDAO is working on (love the idea of being able to search through active projects in notion, along with budget and description). Right now it’s really hard to know what we are working towards… I know a lot is going on in each guild but this will make it so much more tangible, and easier to see where our money is going.
Also - I think a shift to project focus will actually help get more citizens involved. Its much easier to say “yeah I want to work on this specific project” than try and keep up with everything that happens in multiple guilds.
@lyons800 - can you also explain if is this a competing proposal to CIP-62? Or is meant to work together with it? Also please adjust the Google Docs title to be CIP-65 to match
Glad you like the idea.
The goal ultimately is to create a more builder oriented approach to empower more people like yourself in CityDAO.
This is not actually a competing CIP to 62 however it does depend on a slightly different structure that I outlined here which will allow us to strip down Guilds and go full project mode.
Also you will see in the Doc above how guilds are involved in the process
I think project based teams are the future of CityDAO. It will allow smaller groups with a clear scope to get things done faster!
Can’t wait for the following fact pattern to occur:
Project team gets support for a major transaction
Project team does not ask for assistance with legal/negotiation
Project team requests (or worse - spends) $50-100k plus on legal services that could be handled in house… and gets mixed results
This was the point of having “staff roles”. Its about efficiency and its based on understanding how things go in the real world.
Read the proposal, this is not how the process will flow.
The planning guild will work with the project team to ensure all avenues are covered from a legal/financial risk perspective.
“Staff roles” is essentially the same concept as having facilitators, only the comp structure is different.
Project empowerment is good for development, agree.
What i fear is to miss the big picture !
I mean people may suggest lots of projects which most of them could seem cool by themselves, but they will represent the big picture? That, i dont know.
I guess there, the guilds will act as gate keepers by analyzing these projects and approve if they are in line with our vision.
@lyons800 so to lay it out clearly, current process is:
- Post draft CIP in Forum
- Get 20 likes
- Goes to snapshot
Your proposed approach:
- Post to a “Projects” section in the forum
- Prior to publication, Planning / Operations reviews on a set criteria.
- Then P&O works with poster to get it together to be filled out.
- Then goes to CIP forum for open discussion and 30 like
- Then snapshot.
Is that correct?
If yes, I would suggest flipping the process. Instead of involving a manual review prior to posting to forum for 20 likes, it should first go to forum into a “Project Ideas” section. Then, if it gets 20 likes proceed.
So process instead would look like:
- Post to “Project Ideas”
- If proposal get 20 likes, then P&O does a review and helps get it fleshed out.
- Then goes to CIP forum for final comments
- Then goes to snapshot unless there are a certain # of objections. (optimistic governance, so needs to be rejected at this point to prevent snapshot instead of needing a certain number of votes to move on to snapshot given its already been generally approved)
I think this edit would conserve the time of the P&O team as well as increase transparency.
I think this is a great proposal that will speed up new idea development within the DAO.
There is no more Mission Guild as per the new structure, so you should remove references to it in the document. Planning will play part of that role from what I have read.
@kkopczyn kopczyn has an interesting point for the “project” to go to the forum as a pre-screen in order to proceed. If we had a more engaged citizen base, I would agree. However, given that engagement levels can be low, I think that good ideas may be left on the forum without getting the proper attention. Given where we are in the DAO’s development, I like the idea of people going to Planning / Ops who may be able to give good ideas the push they need and get them in front of the DAO.
Yes i’m aligned with this
@asincrypto @kkopczyn Apathy is nothing new for any portfolio/community manager professionally. If it were “fun” then more people would do it.
People like challenges, puzzles, and games. Less Civic duties…
I’d start with value proposition.