As the end of the year approaches, I propose to use this discussion to discuss learnings from the last 12 months and ways to move forward. If you have thoughts on what went well, and what could be done better, please post them below.
I’m placing mine below.
Looking back on what learnings from the last 6 months of the guild structure, we started off with the goal of creating a more organized approach to operations and process in CityDAO.
The goal of the planning guild was to continue the process of streamlining how the DAO works and thus making it easier for work to get done. Those things included cleaning up the way that the discord works, re-working the CityDAO notion and knowledge base, as well as streamlining the CIP process and making it more transparent and understandable.
I was a big advocate of reducing the expenses of the DAO and increasing the amount of money that is flowing back to the treasury. I remain dedicated to those goals so that we can increase the impact that CityDAO has while continuing the longevity of the organization.
The current format of the planning guild (and other guilds) is not optimal for continuing those goals for multiple reasons:
- Nobody on the team is fully dedicated to maintenance and development of the DAO ops tools. This leads to gaps in support (like not having correct permissions in certain channels or the notion not being fully understood by the community due to lack of walkthrough on it). It also causes problems where there isn’t a single person responsible for execution of tasks.
- DAOs aim to be decentralized, but there are varying and inconsistent interpretations of how to implement. In practice, it means that anyone that has admin access on a tool feels they can do whatever they like in terms of edits without consulting a group and communicating it clearly to the DAO community. This causes further confusion in how tools work as they change seemingly arbitrarily without communication out about changes that are being made. This is made worse because of #1 since it makes it harder to communicate about such changes.
- CIPs get moved arbitrarily through the process of passing without following clear criteria as the process of moving them forward depends on who has admin access to the snapshot platform and what they think is accurate, rather than a clear set of guidelines.
Because of that:
- My personal focus as part of the planning guild has shifted from maintenance of DAO tools and shepherding of the CIP process to working on reforming DAO governance to address the real challenges above.
- I have come to believe that the most important challenges facing this DAO are those of the core governance structure as the rest are just symptoms. e.g. the bickering, unclear info in tools, etc… all rise from the fact that there are not clear stewards of the DAO who are accountable and the process is not clearly defined.
With that in mind, I’ve worked to update the operating agreement with a group of others which lead to:
- This information gathering exercise.
- This updated operating agreement forum post.
- This updated operating agreement from that post after addressing the concerns raised in the post and after.
- This proposal for a DAO governance convention to move this process forward as there has not been high participation in the previous 3 exercises.
My proposal for how we should move forward (which I will submit to the convention if it happens) is that:
- No longer pass guilds as bundles, if any guilds want to exist they should CIP on their own.
- Fund 3 main roles for full time in the DAO:
- Finance Lead
- Operations Lead
- Legal Lead
- Fix CIP governance through convention with the result of an elected multisig that acts as stewards of the DAO.
- Re-commit to a CityDAO mission through convention.
- CIPs should not fund outside entities, but rather projects that are wholly owned by CityDAO.
What learnings do you have?