Thank you @lex. Let us leave it at that for the time being, since there are probably better forums to discuss DAO policy, vision, etc. than in the comment section of a proposal that is no longer active. There will be plenty of opportunity to leave comments specific to to my involvement in and contribution to the Pocket DAO in the reimbursement proposal since that proposal will be active and not closed.
As to the bigger picture, I am fairly confident, after talking with @JackALaing post-vote that on the PNI side, the entire PEP-39 discussion really advanced the ball in terms of them helping to pave the path to define and implement the mechanisms needed to enable recurring funding. This will enable the DAO to give a budget, e.g., to @poktblade to oversee a couple jr. devs to contribute to coredev, provide funding to xboo to head up a DevRel cadre, etc. I think we will get there.
Hey all, we are going to continue this debate in the next governance town hall (next Tuesday), with the following agenda:
Theme: Supporting Long-term Contributions & DAO Leadership
Open Floor to Express Feelings About the Theme (15 mins)
Debate 1 (45 mins): The DAO should not let concerns about accountability structures delay entering into long-term forward-looking contracts with contributors.
Debate 2 (45 mins): The DAO should adopt an organizational structure that delegates leadership of different workstreams/functions to groups of contributors.
We’re looking for 2 speakers to present in each side of each debate, so around 8 in total.
This is a timely and welcome initiative. Thanks for coming up with it!
However, isn’t proposition #1 essentially the antithesis of #2?
Why not consolidate into a single 45- or 60-minute debate:
“DAO should adopt an organizational structure that delegates leadership of different workstreams/functions to groups of contributors VS DAO should not let concerns about accountability structures delay entering into long-term forward-looking contracts with contributors.”
Proponents of the first proposition will strengthen their position by arguing against #2 and vice versa.
Two separate debates will lead to duplication. One debate is way more focused. A single debate will promote conciseness and facilitate listener uptake.
I am having a hard time seeing how 1 and 2 are antithetical. Seems pretty orthogonal to me with some area of overlap (like recurring funding given to committee members or a committee to oversee recurring funding). But even in the overlap, they’re not antithetical . And since both topics came up in the discussion thread and intersect, it seems fairly natural to touch on both topics on the same day.
But by all means, send a DM to Jack with your ideas on debate format; he was only posting here where eyeballs might see the advert for the upcoming townhall; I don’t think it was his intention to actually keep this PEP open as a place for further discussion. This PEP has been closed and there are other places to continue to contribute your thoughts such as the TG or Discord channels
The first point is about what should be done first in terms of the DAO hiring someone: do we need structures in place before hiring someone or we should hire someone and then take the time to discuss how these structures should be?
The second point is about if these structures should have decision power or if the DAO should delegate leadership to them.
You can agree with the first and ave different oppinions about the second:
You want to hire someone now and give him/her desicion power.
You want to hire someone now and give him/her no power at all, he/she should only give reports to the DAO.
You dont want to hire someone now (lets discuss structures first) but when you do you want to give him/her desicion power.
… and so on