Source Pod Ratification Proposal

Proposal: Source Pod Ratification

Author: @zkchun
Date: 2022-05-24T22:00:00Z
Consent from: @john_sterlacci, @itsdanwu, @julz, @frogmonkee, @appt_pupil, @cadena, @postarchitekt, @gaian, @aia, @JonSimmons-dendrons
Consent by: 2022-06-01T22:00:00Z

Pod Name

  • Note: Suggesting this over because capital casing doesn’t work great in URLs and for consistency with current naming convention in the Orca ecosystem.

Pod Type (on-chain or off-chain)

On-chain pod

Situation / Tension Pod Addresses

Ratifying the source pod on-chain would be to the following ends:

  • Provide visibility into a core entity within Orca
  • Exist as a possible container for future funds and act as execution authority
  • Create surface area to experiment with tools and scenarios faced by other organizations


The source pod exists to steward the flow of information and coordination across pods.


  1. Home finding - Supporting new initiatives in finding homes (in existing pods or spinning up new pods)
  2. Information Flow - Ensuring SL and ON have proper channels and support for information flow between and among pods

Relevant Parent Pods

None; the source pod is equivalent to the general circle in sociocracy.

Members and Roles

Pod Members

  • Orcanauts - Gov-naut
    • Appt Pupil (lead)
    • Cadena (delegate)
  • Orcanauts - Art-naut
    • PostArchitekt (lead)
    • Gaian (delegate)
  • Orcanauts - Nav-naut
    • dendrons (lead)
    • aia (delegate)
  • Sonar Labs - Communications
    • frogmonkee (lead)
    • Chase (delegate)
  • Sonar Labs - Protocol
    • Dan Wu (lead)
    • John (delegate)

Pod Admin

None; without a pod admin, source pod membership can be managed through multi-sig transactions.

Source pod members are the pod leads + a delegate from a pod in the Orca network, both of which are social roles. The social agreements around who holds these roles are managed at the level of the respective pod before it is changed in the source pod. This means that there is a social agreement among source pod members to hold no objection rights to who the pod lead and delegate of a given pod are. The multi-sig transaction to manage pod source pod membership is a necessary technical operation, but not a medium for voting on source pod membership.


I propose a transaction threshold of 7 of 10.


I propose to set a short review period to coincide with the review of the governance charter: 20 June 2022. This seems safe, as an agreement can be made to extend the duration if no major concerns emerge.

The review period would be an appropriate time to evaluate how the proposed settings feel, especially, but not limited to:

  • Having no pod admin
  • Proposal threshold of 7/10
  • Pod duration


From our governance charter:

  1. Resolve Objections: if pod member(s) have objections, each should be handled one at a time; there are four pathways to resolve an objection (pick the most promising option and repeat until resolved):
    1. Member(s) who object are responsible for suggesting amendments and collaborating with proposer(s) to make the proposal safe to try and good enough for now
    2. Group has time-boxed discussion to explore how the objection(s) may be resolved
    3. Proposers re-work the proposal with significant revisions, potentially bringing in different members to collaborate
    4. Abandon the proposal altogether
  2. Repeat consent round and repeat resolution steps as needed


To execute on this proposal, consent is required from the source pod members by 2022-06-01T22:00:00Z

If you agree that:

then please express your consent by smashing Consent below👇

Ratify the source pod on-chain with parameters as specific in this proposal
  • Consent
  • Object

0 voters



Love that you found a voting tool. Thank you! :man_bowing:t5:

I appreciate the name variation as well. :smiley:


I have an objection, but one that should be fairly straightforward to address. A 6/10 threshold would mean that in theory a proposal could be triggered without any SL members acting upon it. That doesn’t feel like it reflects reality, so I’d propose that we raise this to 7/10 to avoid that possibility. Given that we don’t expect a high volume of proposal requests, this doesn’t seem like it would cause too much additional delay, so I don’t see any obvious reasons not to do this.


@Appt_Pupil, I made the proposed change. I think it makes sense.

@JonSimmons-dendrons, @Cadena, @aia, if you are not okay with the change from 6/10 to 7/10 threshold, please update your vote.


Thanks for the update and ping. My vote remains the same!

1 Like

Two thoughts:

  1. Is there a method to remove or add new source pod members? Would it be a proposal to remove X or add Y that requires a 7/10 threshold vote?

  2. I noticed Chase is not a pod member. We discussed this briefly two weeks ago that Chase can still set agenda and lead calls without being a pod member, she just won’t have objection rights. Just want to make sure we’re comfortable with that. I could see Chase taking Julz’s position in Communications if that’s desired.


Good questions.

Re 1) Source pod members are the pod lead + 1 delegate from a pod, both of which are social roles. My view is that the social agreements around who hold these roles need to change at the level of the respective pod, before it is changed in the source pod. So this implies a social agreement among source pod members to hold no objection rights to who the pod lead and delegate of a given pod is. Meaning that the multi-sig transaction to manage source pod membership is a necessary formality, but not a true medium for voting on source pod membership.

Does that make sense/ address your question @frogmonkee? If it does, I’ll amend the proposal to clarify.

Re 2) I’d be curious to hear thoughts on this as well, especially if anyone sees ways that this can lead to unsafe practices until we reach the review window.


Thanks so much for proposal @zkchun.

Want to acknowledge how much I appreciate everyone’s thoughtful and committed participation in source pod (and all ON efforts). With that said, I’ve decided to take a step back from my role in source pod.

Orca’s BD (business development) efforts with partners (both for pod onboarding and integrations) are picking up. These partnerships are essential in bringing us closer to public beta, but they also take a lot of time and attention. I expect it to be especially busy in the next few months as beta requests are rolling in.

I want to be sure I can fully commit myself to these efforts. While, I’m incredibly excited by the community work and source pod aims/domains, I want to 1) give myself permission to fully devote my time to Orca BD and partners while 2) also being sure I respect the commitments everyone else has made to their ON roles.

With that said, I’ve decided I need to limit my involvement in the source pod, for now. Luckily, one of the key benefits of pods is that they are flexible, and this also present us with an opportunity to see what source pod membership rotation might look like. :innocent:

Given @chase’s involvement in the community, and in the source pod as facilitator, the SL comm’s pod has made the following role changes:

  • @frogmonkee to fulfill the role of pod lead (in place of me)
  • @chase to fulfill the role of delegate

I want to note again that this is temporary while things are busy on the BD side. Longer term, I absolutely intend to rejoin the source pod and commit myself fully to the role expectations. :heart_on_fire:


Completely understandable he need to prioritize this work @julz and am looking forward to seeing how it plays out.

I do feel the need to ask the slightly uncomfortable question of how much latitude the SL pod reps have to act. With you and John both in pod leadership roles, this was not a concern, yet there could be scenarios where this could cause potential issues. How should we think about this as we undergo our Source Pod work?


I think that’s a super fair question!

I fully delegated my position to @frogmonkee + @chase so I trust them to act freely under the aims/domains of the source pod.

If there is a circumstance where I disagree with SL comms pod stakeholders, that will be a discussion for the SL comms pod to discuss and potentially reshuffle roles if necessary.

As mentioned, pod flexibility give us the opportunity to see what source pod membership rotation might look like. If anything, I actually think it’s an important stress test for me to step back and let others fill those roles.


I consent to the changes.

I consent to all changes made thus far.

I consent

I too consent to ratify Source Pod!

I think that’s everyone! Will follow up with next steps ASAP.

Thanks everyone. Will close this for now. If there are other comments or concerns, please open a topic in the feedback category or raise it in Discord.