Re: Last Pod Lead Sync (2022-04-11) and Double Linking

In response to listening to the audio of this meeting.

A short and simple explanation, and why the perspectives can’t really be fulfilled by just one person.

1 Like

Too, I totally agree with Chun that repurposing Pod Lead Sync to unified Orca Pod would be a good idea.

I will also point out, we have a literal Orcanaut Pod, but if we separate Pod Leads and Delegates, it’s role as a Pod doesn’t make much sense. So, if SL wants tight control over Orcanaut behavior, actively participating in an Orcanaut top level Pod is an easy way to do that with our current governance charter. As well as facilitating transparency.

FWIW, I totally agree that the future of Pods is for new organizations even more than those transitioning. Pods with education around dynamic governance can really help shfit the whole ecosystem to learning to functioning more decentrally, and humanly.

I have no problem with current focus, although not with insisting on the SL focus. If it is a resource issue, as Post is saying while I am typing, smaller dOrgs can possbily be just as valuable both as far as marketing and assets earned through assisting. Orcanauts used effectively, unless there is a desire for complete control by SL, can totally support SL in finding its true product market fit.

Personally, I think Pods are a core part of the future of Web3 human organization, and if Orca doesn’t see that and take advantage of its slight lead, others will simply create something else to fill that need once the value is seen.


I’m currently iterating on the Aims and Domains Figma file to reflect an Orca pod as you outline here.

I also think we should talk through exactly how double linking would work given the current size of some pods, but I have no doubt we can implement it and I’m super stoked to explore this.

1 Like

Double linking has nothing to do with Pod size. Only the number of Pods.

Double linking means all pods that need to share information should have a Pod where at least two members from that Pod are a part of the Pod that is sharing information. One member is the Pod Lead, the other Member is the the Pod Delegate.

Because Pods are often created top down, when a new Pod is created by a Pod that is now its parent, it should have at least two people to start, a Pod Lead and a Delegate. No matter how many members the Pod has, the double link is created through the Pod Lead and delegate.

When Pods are created top down like this, it is assumed that the Pod Lead was a member of the originating Pod. The delegate may or may not have been, but their conscious role and perspective of representation is different than that of a Pod Lead.

If the delegate does a reasonable job of representing the non-leadership POV of a Pod, then double linking prevents top-down forcing of decisions irrespective of (Pod) Leadership desires. The regular member Delegate, has veto power in the parent Pod, as well as another POV to share from the parent Pod to the sub-Pod.

I hope that all made sense.