[Discussion] A hypothesis: Thin workstreams lead to better outcomes

[DisruptionJoe]

I really like your answer here.

[DisruptionJoe]

@kyle

Here is a quick breakdown for those less familiar. Within the five workstreams, there are potential “sub-workstreams” from my perspective :

1. DAO Ops has two potential sub-workstreams: community experience and operations
2. FDD has three potential sub-workstreams: sybil, ground control, Grants Investigation Agency
3. dGitcoin has two named sub-workstreams: dCompass and dGrants
4. MSC has two (likely more) sub-workstreams: prototypes and products
5. MMM has potentially four sub-workstreams: marketing, in-person events, Merch, Design/Memes

I wonder if you wouldn’t get the best of both worlds if these thin workstream budgets were proposed separately regardless of operating as an independent workstream?

[seanmac]

@kyle

marketing, in-person events, Merch, Design/Memes

There’s actually more than 4. For season 14, we’re likely looking at 7 substreams:

• Growth (Jonas+Sean today)
• Product marketing (Sean today)
• Brand/design (mostly unowned, this is where merch falls)
• Comms/PR (YAP global)
• Content (mostly unowned)
• Events (distributed across workstreams & contributors)
• Strategy & Ops (admin, budgeting/payments, onboarding)

I’d argue that at this phase in our workstream’s development it makes most sense for all of these sub-functions to live within MMM because they can then benefit from better coordination & a cohesive strategy+execution in the setup phase but it’s possible that at some point this calculus will change, especially if CSDO is able to scale its processes to accommodate more workstreams.

If we were to split out all of these as their own workstreams now, we’d likely gain speed (because we’re removing bottlenecks) but lose cohesiveness and consistency of strategy & vision.