Adjourn and Archive the Orcanauts Pod

Proposal: Adjourning the Orcanuts Pod
Author: @aia
Date: 2022-07-01T17:45:00Z
Consent required from: Orca-source
Consent by: 2022-07-07T11:00:00Z

As suggested in the governance charter, this proposal follows the SOCCR framework .


Although we all felt that maintaining the Orcanauts Pod was worthwhile, lived experience shows that it serves no purpose in the current life and functioning of the community. It has been obviated by the creation of the Orca-source Pod, which has many of the same members, and SL members as well.

Even the 1 / month meeting we agreed to have did not happen, and there is no clear aim or domains for the Orcanauts Pod at this time. And all this would be a non-issue, except all Pods are publicly available online, and visible in relationships through the Orca Podarchy feature.

Currently, based on how the community was organized all the -naut Pods are children of the Orcanauts Pod. Yet it doesn’t function and those Pods are funded by the Orca-source Pod. This presents a false representation of how the organization is actually functioning. I believe, and hope you agree, that it is in our best interest to present as clear and accurate a representation of our experiment in governance with Pods as accurately as possible. We are already in a bit of a spotlight, and that light will grow brighter as we move from private beta, to public beta to initial release.

The only reason to maintain the Pod is that it has funds in its treasury. However, mothballing it by ‘hiding’ it, in the same way we have org-naut, should still leave working with its safe and treasury availble to us.


  1. No change: We leave the orcanauts Pod as is, and make it the false parent of all th -naut Pods.
  2. Move its Pod members: We remove member -naut Pods from and add them as children of the Pod, which reflects our actual usage.
  3. Wait for Eject: Official removal of Pods from podarchy is on SL Roadmap, and we could wait for it to be live, and then Eject the Pod from our Podarchy, after moving -naut Pods to orca-source.


  • Number of transactions: Any on-chain transaction will cost some gas.
  • Consequences: Possible effects of this approach.


Option Txs Consequences
1. No change None Podarchy would not reflect current governmental practice
2. Move sub Pods to >=6 Governmental practice reflected, Pod left floating by itself.
3. Move sub Pods and move it to “drydock” pod >=7 Semantically accurate UX which keeps Pod visible in an accurate manner. Drydock could look funny online, but allows us to easily reuse Pods.
4. Move sub Pods and Eject >=5 The designed way to “mothball” Pods coming soon from SL. Presumably without it taking space in the podarchy, and still able to be recovered
5. Move sub Pods and delete entirely 4 Most complete on-chain cleanup, but we lose the option to reuse this pod


After consulting with @John_Sterlacci on Discord and digesting his feedback, I recommend option 2. In the alternative option 4 allows us to demonstrate the utility of a new feature if we are willing to wait. Or, even both in time as the ability arises.

The process would look as follows:

  • remove * as a member from
  • add * as a member of
  • remove all current members from
  • maintain as a member to
  • transfer the admin key from zkchun.eth to

This keeps also the orcanauts pod reusable for the future. Importantly, it moves the pod out of the Orcanaut podarchy, which makes it less confusing for outsiders to interpret how our organization is structured…

*The time limit for this proposal (2022-07-07T23:59:00Z) is set to be on the shorter side as it has been a discussion on orcanauts current relevance has happened in both Pod Lead and Orca Source meetings, on Discord and follwing posts, and some explicit discussion here on the forum. At the last Orca-source meeting there was agreement among ON members, except for @Appt_Pupil’s absence, that the Pod should be mothballed for now.

A veto from Pupil as not GEFNSETT would be happily accepted by me if clear and explicit reasons as to why we should not do this were stated. To this point that has not happened.

EDIT (2022-07-03)
I made an omission in this proposal with respect to the funds in the For options 2 - 5, I suggest that the funds currently there be transferred to the safe, and that the amount received be documented as X1 funds in an Orcanaut document in ClickUp, so that disbursements from them be earmarked for purposes related to X1 or pre-X1 only, unless explicitly documented as to why something else should be allowed.

This is one more tx for all options 2 - 5.

  • I consent
  • I dissent

0 voters

I’m good with option 2 as I agree that having the Orcanaut pod in between the -naut pods and the Source Pod is inaccurate. While I do believe there is a value to an Orcanaut pod as a separate entity, there is no reason not to move ahead with what you propose if we’re not deleting it entirely, as there is no current activity that will be negatively impacted by undertaking option 2.

One minor quibble - I would not consider the monthly pod lead meetings we had considered once we launched the Source Pod as evidence that the Orcanaut pod is not needed, as I don’t view the Orcanaut pod as just being the -naut leads, but a superset of all Orcanauts. It instead reflected that the Source Pod addressed everything the pod lead meeting was handling.

1 Like

Aware that I don’t have objection rights, but couple things are not clear to me:

1. Will the proposal threshold for change?

  • add * as a member of

By making the -naut.pod’s subPods of, we also give them approval rights within orca-source. With threshold at 7/10, adding three ON pods to orca-source would mean 7 of the 13 signers are ON. So my question is if the source pod approval threshold will be adjusted.

2. Can you clarify what happens to the funds that are currently in the safe?

It’s a little unclear to me what the recommended option means for the funds currently in the Orcanauts safe.


Thanks for reminder on the funds. That was in my head until I started reworking your old adjorn proposal. I will edit, and mark as such the original message. My suggestion is those funds be put into the orca-source safe.

1 Like

As for the Pods being in Orca-Source, the question would be as alive as it was for

Historically, I think their presence was in fact simply ignored. I am reluctant to suggest doing anything about them without further conversation, and the changes recommended will leave us no worse off than ON was with

If nothing else, it is simply another point demonstrating why ON needs lived experience working with Pods.

That being the case, 7/13 with Pods never voting seems GEFNSETT to me.

1 Like