2022.03.17 - gov-naut sync


  • Welcome and transition into meeting - All (2 min)
  • Update on X1 funding - Pupil (5 min)
  • Determine how many signatures we want to require to distribute gov-naut funds from our Gnosis Safe - Pupil facilitates (5 min)
  • Update on DAO pain points survey workstream - Pupil and project team members (5 min)
  • Update on Treasury Mgmt workstream - DarylEdwards and project team members (5 min)
  • Update on metagovernance workstream - Pupil and Brunny (5 min)
  • Recap decisions and action items - Pupil (3 min)

Actions from the meeting:

  • Pupil - Ask zkchun to increase the multisig requirement for gov-naut from 1 to 3
  • Pupil - Put the funding proposal in front of Core on or after 2022.03.18 (assuming no objections to the proposal surface before then) and request distribution of funds once the multisig changes have taken effect
  • DAO pain points team members - schedule additional interviews, conduct planned interviews, connect with zkch and/or itsdanwu on any other data they may have collected from Dune Analytics regarding the state of DAO governance
  • Pupil - Draft task compensation plan for the DAO pain points workstream and vet with participants to create a sensible proposal for approval by gov-naut
  • Treasury Mgmt workstream members - refine proposal based on feedback and determine tasks to be completed
  • Metagovernance workstream members - finalize draft of token stewardship principles and share with gov-naut; draft metagovernance lifecycle workflow and mechanics

Meeting Recording (thanks to PostArchitekt for recording this)

Thanks for these notes, @Appt_Pupil!

This is related to a comment I just put in the Metagovernance proposal post.

I’m noticing in several places the idea of “task compensation” and just want to point out that there is an inherent assumption happening here: that compensation should be awarded on a task basis.

I don’t think that’s necessarily what we want, particularly in gov-naut. From one valuable perspective, compensation is a tool to reward the behavior that we as a pod want. While tasks associated with OIPs are important to get done, there is a lot of other work (including responding to discourse threads like this one) that is important for the healthy functioning of the pod.

I propose that we pause on the “draft task compensation plan” task (@Appt_Pupil), and just leave the total in the corresponding pain points OIP post.

This is a fair point, @DarylEdwards.eth. While we need task structures to get the work done, how we reward and recognize that work does not have to directly correspond to that. That said, I don’t understand what exactly we mean by “leave the total in the corresponding pain points OIP post”. Are we just saying let’s not do anything with it now until we figure out what we want to do here? If so, I’m fine with that, but if something else was intended I don’t want to neglect that.

1 Like

My apologies, that last line was definitely a little cryptic!

My intention was to suggest that only a “total compensation” number be proposed, and save the effort around breaking out the details until at least the gov-naut “compensation” / “transfers to individuals” conversation happens, which I think would be next week.

1 Like