Thanks @jengajojo for getting the ball rolling on some of these initiatives. Though conversations like these might seem mundane and unnecessary, I truly believe that they are critical aspects of Gitcoin’s legitimacy as a DAO and important pieces on Gitcoin’s path to decentralization.
Additionally, I believe that more thorough documentation & closed loopholes = more robust governance, which starts a network effect that leads to more legitimate governance.
My thoughts on some of the proposals
I am a big fan of this thinking and this is the easiest aspect for me to say “yes” to. In terms of the examples just below, I think there is a bit of finessing we can do to capture real examples of what Gitcoin tokenholders should be voting on.
When I read examples of voting on modifying the cadence, changing governance tooling, foundation director elections, and multisig actions, I tend to agree. When I read other things like product policies and adding/removing partners, I am less in agreement.
I appreciate that these are all just examples to get the ball rolling. @jengajojo where is the best place to capture the full extent of these examples - here in the governance forum or in some sort of working doc? I’d love to tease out these examples and create clear guidelines as to what does/doesn’t need to be voted on + what category it fits into.
When I initially thought of a constitution, I think of examples like Working Constitution of the Optimism Collective and ENS’ constitutions. These focus more on token holder rights and is a foundational document that any governance system would have.
When I think of the Gov v3 post, I see this as part constitution, part incomplete and hard to read governance manual.
I am not overly concerned with the direction we head, though I would like to see us double down on the Governance Manual since this is the most comprehensive and clear document we have relating to governance (and has a decent UI compared to a long, drawn-out document).
This seems fine and safe to try.
Very supportive of creating some standards like this. Whether these are the final words, I don’t have a strong opinion, though the flow seems right.
Sounds good to me.
To @deltajuliet’s point, not aligned to governooor language (let’s use something more clear here). @jengajojo who did you envision were “Pod Members”? I’m not clear on who these people are.
And to @deltajuliet’s point about CSDO - this is another out-of-date aspect of the governance manual since this group no longer exists, and I’m happy to work with you to make sure that this gets accurately updated.
This works for me. To be clear, right now I am responsible for doing these updates, and I would like to see this responsibility moved to or shared with the DAOplomats team.
I am mostly aligned to the suggestions above minus 1 or 2 things. Thanks for getting the ball rolling on these items!