[DRAFT for discussion] Partnership Processes: partnerships & comms teams

Hey Team! :sunny: The below is something I’ve been working on (thank you to everyone who gave input on this – @M0nkeyFl0wer, @Sov, @quaylawn, @umarkhaneth, @Viriya) in an attempt to set up some clear processes moving forward where we’re working across workstreams on partnerships. Join the discussion, let me know what you think and feel free to pick it apart!

The below outlines the processes/steps for the partnerships and comms teams to proactively and successfully work cross functionally and inform the DAO and stakeholders. This was inspired by the recent partnership controversy, but this document is specifically a separate conversation to that. This document aims to outline a better process moving forward so that we can mitigate similar occurences before they may arise.

Partnership Processes

The below are checklists for everyone working through a partnership engagement, whether it be a contractual partnership, or another partnership, such as a featured round partner/those building on top of Allo, etc. This includes the partnership and the comms team.

I. Partnership Team Checklist

II. Comms Checklist

III. Processes/DACIs per product/service

  1. Partnerships Team Checklist

Below is a checklist for all partnership teams to follow. You can view the product-specific breakdowns to get clarification on DACIs and processes. Skip over the item if it’s not applicable to the situation.

Decision rights for evaluation & setting up a partnership:
Partnerships team & CSDO

Evaluation Criteria: What are the core values or principles Gitcoin looks for in a partner? Does it fit within the guardrails set for the program/product? This can help in initial screening.

NOTE: Setting clear guardrails and a fleshed out partnership policy is a WIP. This will inform us on who we pursue and who we don’t. FYI, my amazing co-worker, @M0nkeyFl0wer, is working on a doc to move this exact policy forward, and it’s open for discussion! Check it out here

After guardrails are put in place, the below would be only for edge cases, which will help further refine the eligibility criteria:

  • Does it affect the community? Will there be an uptick of support questions?
    • Gut check: does something have the potential to be controversial? If the people working on or hearing of it within the DAO think it even has a bit of potential to be controversial then consult with DAO Core & the Steward Council.
    • Are we expecting backlash?
    • Is there a risk to our brand we need to explore beyond the guardrails already set in place?
  • If we didn’t inform the community in a gov post, would we expect people to be upset?
  • Have we used default language in the contract that protects Gitcoin’s interests?

Important questions to ask the partner to consider (if applicable):

  • If this partnership involves a technical integration or product endorsement, have the necessary questions been asked regarding the security/tech?
    • Has this been audited?
    • Could someone use it to steal funds?
    • Who are the right experts inside and outside to consult with?
      • External: Has this been checked with Doppel?
    • What data will be shared with partners?
    • Are there any known vulnerabilities in their system?

Marketing & Comms: What are the key messages that we are driving in this partnership if there is an agreement to do co-marketing?

  • Has marketing & PR been looped into the conversation? This is an immediate requirement, with the marketing rep from each “pod” (see below).
  • Does the support team need to be informed? Do you have all the necessary information for them on said integration/partnership? (Generally, a good rule of thumb is to always inform support, unless the announcement will not be affecting our support channels at all).
    • Where to send people when they flood our support channels

Post-Partnership Review: After a certain period, how will the partnership’s success or impact be evaluated? What metrics will be used?

  • Have metrics been captured and evaluated?
  • Has the impact been captured and evaluated?
  • Has a report been created for the partner?
  • Do we have an internal report drafted?

  1. Comms Checklist

Marketing Execution

Overall DACI Breakdown (see detailed breakdowns p/product & service below)

  • Driver - MMM
  • Approver - Marketing rep from the specific product team/workstream
  • Consulting - At least one rep from the team partnering with
  • Informing - DAO Core

General Marketing timelines

Below are general guidelines to how long marketing needs for setting up a campaign, including design assets,

Event Outcome Time to completion
Introduction to partner Creating and presenting a marketing/media plan Roughly a week
Co-marketing agreements Design asset request/delivery Design would need 1-2 weeks (larger campaigns)

Marketing & PR Checklist

Primary/Key Info/Data

  • Is the partner aware of the marketing plan outlined and agreed upon?
  • If it’s a contractual partnership, are marketing needs/assets baked into the contract?
    • If yes, did marketing sign off on these/help curate?
    • Have we used/created a template for language we require in terms of comms & expectations? (For eg, be more explicit about limiting the speech of contributors and reserving the right to speak broadly about our objectives.)
  • Are we aware of product team priorities and updates?
  • Have there been any pertinent strategic decisions made?
  • Has the rationale behind these strategic decisions been communicated effectively to DAO Core/all stakeholders?
  • What progress toward or deviations from organizational objectives should we account for?

Secondary (Key Messages & Discussions)

  • Does this drive the narrative that Gitcoin is credibly neutral? What about each product, and Gitcoin Grants?
  • Is there a clear CTA?
  • What are the success metrics? (Included in the marketing plan/campaign brief)
  • When is best to announce so as to mitigate ecosystem cannibalization?
  • Please cross out the following if we have:
    • Identified key stakeholders?
    • Gauged their temperament?
    • Forecasted the reception of the news?
  • Has the DAO been informed of any big announcement being released?
    • Which announcements require the DAO to be informed ahead of the release?

Tertiary (Execution)

  • Has marketing & PR been in communication?
  • Has support been notified of the announcement?
  • Have those driving the content been briefed?
  • Are we highlighting any key wins or impact?
  • How does this align with active thought leadership?
  • Is there a spokesperson available?

PR Questionnaires:

It is clear that the ever-increasing modularity of Gitcoin’s ecosystem and associated sub-communities requires an adaptable communications strategy. As such, this section reflects the processes that should help inform a well-rounded plan for announcements as they arise. Below are two tables that can be filled out to inform any announcement, big or small.

DACI Breakdown

  • Driver - Caolán
  • Approver - at least 1 rep to be nominated from MMM or PGF
  • Consulting - steward council
  • Informing - dao-core

Internal PR Questionnaire (most important info for the community)

External PR Questionnaire (most important info for media)

  1. Processes/DACIs per product/channel

:point_right: Gitcoin Grants/Gitcoin

Evaluation Criteria: What are the core values or principles Allo looks for in a partner? This can help in initial screening.

This related to matching fund partners, and featured round partners and any other ad hoc Gitcoin partners that doesn’t fit into any product or GG criteria.

Are there sectors/spheres that we really do or do NOT want to collaborate with? This is not outlined yet. [partnership policies WIP] View the discussion on this here:

Partnership pod:
Azeem & Ben from PGF
Mathilda from MMM

DACI Breakdown for comms/marketing

  • Driver - Mathilda
  • Approver - Laura from MMM & Ben from PGF
  • Consulting - Laura & at least one rep from PGF
  • Informing - DAO Core

Post-Partnership Review: After a certain period, how will the partnership’s success or impact be evaluated? What metrics will be used?

:point_right: Allo

Evaluation Criteria: What are the core values or principles Allo looks for in a partner? This can help in initial screening.

Partnership pod:
Zakk & Nate from Allo
Alexa from MMM

Allo will follow a case-by-case process on which partners to co-market with.

DACI Breakdown for comms/marketing

  • Driver - Alexa
  • Approver - Nate / Zakk
  • Consulting - Gary/Mathilda
  • Informing - DAO Core

Post-Partnership Review: After a certain period, how will the partnership’s success or impact be evaluated? What metrics will be used?

:point_right: Grants Stack

Evaluation Criteria: What are the core values or principles Gitcoin looks for in a brand partner? This can help in initial screening.

Partnership pod:
Meg from Grants Stack
Ericka from MMM

Grants Stack will let anyone who complies with basic legal regulations run on Grants Stack. Basic legal regs = no selling unregistered securities, porn, funneling money to OFAC countries, etc.

  • Grants Stack actively engages in co-marketing initiatives on community-led rounds. This will be revisited the more we scale. Case studies are usually done on unique / novel cases.
  • The future forward looks like co-marketing tiers where organizations receive more marketing support as they pay more.
  • We are also looking at having a section on grants.gitcoin.co that features partners running on GS. The intention is that the section will expand to others as adoption increases and more are running programs.

DACI Breakdown for comms/marketing

  • Driver - Mathilda (execution), Ericka (planning)
  • Approver - Ericka
  • Consulting - Meg
  • Informing - DAO Core

Post-Partnership Review: After a certain period, how will the partnership’s success or impact be evaluated? What metrics will be used?

:point_right: Gitcoin Passport

Evaluation Criteria: What are the core values or principles Passport looks for in a partner? This can help in initial screening.

Normally handled on a case-by-case basis. If it’s a stamp provider, Passport will almost certainly provide co-marketing. Determining who a stamp provider is a separate process.

Partnership pod:
Jeremy from Passport
Gary from MMM

DACI Breakdown for comms/marketing

  • Driver - Gary
  • Approver - At least one rep from Gitcoin Passport
  • Consulting - Mathilda
  • Informing - DAO Core

Post-Partnership Review: After a certain period, how will the partnership’s success or impact be evaluated? What metrics will be used?


This is a really strong document @MathildaDV. Kudos for the leadership on this important topic that effects all our workstreams and the DAO. It’s an honour and a privilege to work with you. Cheers.


Really appreciate you putting all this amazing effort into this document. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to avoid confusion in the future. Thank you for putting the framework for it together. I’m all for going about it this way.


Thanks for sharing this process @MathildaDV

  • I’d suggest adding a X(twitter) poll as a community input in the decision making process.
  • Consider adding a section for potential scenarios and contingencies. What should be done in case of unexpected issues, negative community reactions, or changes in partner behavior?
  • Clearly outline what constitutes an “edge case” that requires further refinement of eligibility criteria. Provide examples of such cases to guide the team.
  • Define the exact timeline and process for conducting post-partnership reviews, including who is responsible for generating reports and analyzing metrics
  • Expand on Grants Stack’s approach to co-marketing initiatives, detailing how organizations receive marketing support and the criteria for featuring partners on grants.gitcoin.co

Hey all, apologies for my delayed contribution to this thread!

Conflicting thoughts are natural, and sharing them with the world is not only acceptable but crucial. Collective truth is what guides us :slight_smile:

I’d like to call out a suggestion from @carlosjmelgar on migrating activity over to Lens. It certainly doesn’t have to be an immediate thing, but perhaps we could include a clause that encourages non-web3 native partners to create a Lens profile.

Definitely agree with you from a PR perspective. Proper reputation management in crisis situations will have a structured plan outlined ahead of time. I am happy to assist with the development of this!

Also agree with this, although I will defer to @M0nkeyFl0wer & @MathildaDV.

@CoachJonathan, @rohit and I are working on the Gitcoin approach to impact reporting, which encompasses your suggestion – so thank you for bringing it up. There is also a similar conversation happening on this thread: Setting Guardrails and Best Practices for Partnerships - #28 by vgk

May I ask to you to explain this point a bit further?


Transparency and controversy walks parallelly side by side. We can’t gain transparency without roaming through controversy. So, I think its really a random effect which should be confronted for greater goods. And, thus wipe out each and every controversies. However, its a personal opinion :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Thanks @quaylawn

I suggest definíng clear criteria for who gets featured attention on the landing page depending on, Relevance, Impact, Transparency, Community Engagement, Quality and Innovation and Alignment with Gitcoin Principles.

For the ones who end up passing this review process, define clear boundaries and deliverables for promotion such as: Social Media Promotion, Email Marketing, Content Creation, Events and Cross-Promotion

While I do agree with this approach, majority of web3 users and community are still on ‘X’. If we choose to diversify into web3 social platforms, I suggest adding farcaster to the mix.