Continuation of Orcanauts Pod in light of the Creation of the Source Pod

tl;dr

What to do with the Orcanauts pod is an issue now that the Source Pod (name may change,) has been created and agreed upon. I suggest maintaining the Orcanauts pod and double linking it to all the other active Orcanaut subpods.

Situation

  • Source Pod has been created with double linking to all other ON Pods
  • It creates the opportunity for ON Pods to sync with each other as well as SL.
  • ON and SL are the active community,
  • Orcanauts Pod was umbrella for Pod Lead Sync
  • Orcanauts Pod has assets based on historic agreements and the initial X1 initiatives

Proposal

  • maintain the pod, and add all Pod Leads and Delegates to the existing Orcanauts Pod

Rational

  • orcanauts.pod.xyz gives visibility to Orcanauts as distinguished from Orca, (the Source Pod,) in the Orca Protocol podarchy
  • it has been decided to maintain a Pod Lead Sync like meeting monthly for ON contributor benefit
  • we seem to be strongly following the guidance of Sociocracy for governance so double linking the Pod to the working ON -naut Pods seemed valuable
  • when the Orca community starts to become more autonomous this pod will be necessary
  • it is easiest to finish old business with its treasury by maintaining the Pod’s existence
  • this Pod is also the “hidden” archival mechanism for retired Pods that we may want to resuscitate or reuse for other purposes

Context

I initially suggested reusing the Pod to create the (Orca)Source Pod that has been created. Based on prior agreements, it did not seem to me that SL technically have power over funds they had already released to ON would be problematic. However, conversation in todays Pod Lead Sync meeting surfaced situational facts and multiple good reasons that convinced me it was worth maintaining a distinct Orcanauts pod. Hence, this proposal.

This got no response in Mid May. In mid June without having had a Pod Lead Sync meeting, or even seeing one scheduled. I am wondering if the sentiments it expresses are still true.

I ask, because I feel that our Podarchy misrepresent reality now that the boundary lines of the community vs SL are clearly set. And, although the future hopefully necessitates the need for an Orcanauts pod, it is not representative of reality now.

Please weigh in on this. Thank you! @orca

tl;dr: I think an aim and domains exercise for orcanauts.pod could be helpful.

Expanded

I think the proposed action in the original temp check is safe, but agree that it may not be good enough in representing organizational reality.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but it’s not clear to me how everyone is interpreting what this reality is. And if those interpretations are all the same.

That said, I agree that the reason for existence of orcanauts.pod is a little up in the air at the moment.

The (on-chain) options I can think of now are:

Option 1: Add ON pod leads and delegates as pod members to orcanauts.pod, keep everything else the same

  • This is the suggestion in this temp check

Option 2: Transfer admin key of orcanauts.pod from Chun to orca-source.pod, keep everything else the same

  • Doing this, the question kind of remains what the purpose of the orcanauts.pod is

Option 3: Add ON pod leads and delegates as pod members to orcanauts.pod and transfer admin key of orcanauts.pod from Chun to orca-souce.pod

  • Same here, doesn’t really address the purpose question

Option 4: Keep everything as is, until we have gathered consent to the aim and domains for orcanauts.pod.xyz

While I think 1, 2 and 3 are safe, I’m not sure if they help with getting all contributors on the same page regarding the following:

  1. What is the current reality of the relationship of orcanaut.pod.xyz with the other pods in our network?
  2. Why does the orcanauts.pod exist now?
  3. Why should it keep existing?
  4. What is its area of decision making?

This makes me wonder if we should try to (asynchronously) ratify the aim and domains of orcanaut.pod before we decide what to do with it on-chain (option 4). By doing this, we will have a source of truth to reference when making a decision.

1 Like

I actually thimk the Pod should be mothballed like Org-naut. I wrote a Temp Check as to why, and back pedaled on posting it, when i found thst i mydrlf had initiated adressing the situstion over a mpnth sgo with a diffrrent outcome.

So, i have chosen to follow that up to bring the conversation alive instead.

Mothballing was not one of your options, but as for organizational reality, once the assets in the Orcanauts safe are dealt with, it literally will serve no active purpose in what we’ve defined about how the community is supposed to work. Hence, my saying it is deceptive, not simply redundant.

Hopefully others will chime in.

True. Thanks for calling that out.

I’m conflicted on this topic, so let me put these thoughts out there and see what others make of them. My apologies for this not being as well-organized as I would like, yet my hope is that it isn’t too difficult to parse.

  • I don’t like the idea of not having an Orcanauts pod at all. There should be an on-chain place that all Orcanauts belong to where we are defining what the Orcanauts mean as a community. That said, I recognize that given the current relationship between SL and the Orcanauts, it’s reasonable to ask if that question even makes sense. Nevertheless, if the long term aspiration is that the Orcanauts have a separate identity in the Orca ecosystem, we should have that in place now rather than try to recreate it later.
  • Only having the working pods be the on-chain representation of the Orcanauts gives the impression that those groupings are inherently how the Orcanauts are and should be organized. The Orcanauts are NOT art-naut, dev-naut, gov-naut, nav-naut and anyother-nauts we might come up with. They are just the way we organize to get things done, but that should not be equivalent to who we are as a community.
  • That said, the idea of inserting the Orcanauts pod in between the source pod and art-naut/dev-naut/gov-naut/nav-naut doesn’t make sense either. Source pod has the authority to change the downstream structures, and it’s not clear what role an Orcanaut pod in the middle would play other than getting in the way. It would also screw up how we double link between pods, so ultimately this isn’t workable for us at this point (and likely won’t ever be workable as far as I can tell).

Thus, my current thought is to keep the Orcanaut pod as a separate pod, but not insert it between the source and working group pods. It would instead have a separate connection to the ON working group pods that is not connected to the source pod at all. All Orcanauts would have equal stature there (no leads), because every Orcanaut should have an equal say in what we are about and what our aspirations are. We would have an aims and domains session to determine what its responsibilities are, and it’s possible we may determine that at this point, it does not have any responsibilities beyond being the holder of the Orcanaut mission and brand identity. I still think that is enough to warrant it continuing, especially since positioning it in that way would not interfere with any of the current activities we have going on.

I can see some community members objecting that if the Orcanaut pod isn’t involved in any workstreams, it’s misleading to have this group there. I can see that point of view, yet I just can’t bring myself to adopt it at this time. I’m open to being persuaded differently, though.

I believe I understand where you are coming from Pupil. However, I think maybe you are conflating Orcanauts as a community with the need for something to represent them a Pod.

My concern about a Pod with no Aims and Domains or active utility is that it maintaining it sends public signals through the podarchy that are misleading at best, and outright deceptive at worst.

When the community is actually and autonomous independent community, it will make perfect sense, and every Orcanaut can be empowered through it if we use what I call Sociocratit Fractal Pod design principles. And they don’t need to be a member of the actual Pod for that to be true, simply in a Pod that is in the Podarchy beneath the Orcanauts Pod.

However, that is not the reality NOW. And the community is represented by the Discord Server, and the Discourse Forum, which serve a functional purpose. I am deeply concerned with what I feel would be the deceptive use of signalling that there is a separate governance of Orcanauts than what is actually being lived by us. And strongly believe that it should not be presented as such in the Podarchy until it is a reality.

If there is a real Aim and Domains for an Orcanauts Pod than I am allfor it. Yet, we’ve all pretty much agreed in Discord that continuing the meeting for which it made sense to keep the Pod, don’t make sense for lack of clear purpose, and presumably the desire to not add yet another meeting to the calendar of at least the explicit members of the Pod.

The reality is our community is both SL and the ON community, and the Orca-source Pod reflects that truth exactly. So, I ask you, without an explicit Aim and Domain(s), how is maintaining the Orcanauts Pod active in the Podarchy not an act of deception, even if also possibly self deception?

This is a really important discussion around podarchy and its utility vs distraction.

I err on the side Aia makes with regards to first having a clear pod utility with aims and domains. The listed platforms (discord, discourse) represent the community today as well as having active ON members populate other pods. This is sufficient for me today. As things evolve we can and should add representation where needed.

I agree, Orcanuat Pod should be mothballed.

1 Like