Introduction
On Monday, December 11, Gitcoin hosted its usual Monthly Steward Sync with a different agenda - to take a pause and figure out how to best use our time together each month. Though the main intention of the call was around how weâre meeting, what opened up was a much larger conversation about the role of Stewards at Gitcoin.
Miro board (now locked): Miro | Online Whiteboard for Visual Collaboration
Meeting Takeaways
Current Status and Challenges
We are blessed to have a dedicated and highly experienced community of Stewards who are passionate about Gitcoin. Iâd like to identify a few key challenges to ensure that Stewards are meaningfully engaged in decision-making and governance.
1. Lack of clarity around Steward responsibilities:
This is an important place to start because Iâm seeing and sensing that there are many definitions out there, and therefore different expectations of what a Stewardâs roles and responsibilities are.
Are Stewards GTC token holders that comment and vote yes/no on proposals? Are they advisors? Consultants? Decision-makers? A mix of the above, or all of it? Who gets to be a Steward and who doesnât?
Without an agreed upon definition, we face mismanaged expectations and misunderstandings about how Stewards can contribute meaningfully (leading to drop off and lower engagement).
2. Gap between desire to support and opportunities to support
As a beloved brand in the Web3, it is no surprise that Gitcoin finds itself with an abundance of highly experienced individuals ready to support us in any way needed.
That said, there are several mismatches here that have hampered Stewardsâ ability to contribute:
a) Unidentified Problem Spaces
The DAO has not identified clear problem spaces for Stewards to step in and contribute.
b) Unproductive Past Engagements
Several instances where Stewards were brought in to support, it was found that the engagement was not as productive/helpful as hoped.
c) Decision rights or consultative role?
Whether Stewards should come in as consultants or as part of a working group with decision rights has not been distinguished (relates to a lack of clarity around roles & resp).
d) Lack of Driver
There is no âdriverâ or coordination layer to identify problem spaces, brief Stewards, and then create accountability for delivering (though there is a now a Governance Coordinator who can help shore this gap).
e) Going fast vs. going far
The basic heuristic being followed is:
Less governance = moving faster
More governance = more robust ecosystem
Right now, the DAO is pursuing PMF for its 3 biggest bets - Passport, Allo and Grants Stack. In the pursuit of PMF, the name of the game is to move and move quickly.
There is a natural tension here - a desire for Stewards to contribute (and even get compensated) for their contributions and a DAOâs leadership team that would rather focus on the big problems in front of them without external stakeholders who may lack context to support in a meaningful way.
Bonus: Gap in Decentralization perspectives.
This was not flagged in the conversation, but I believe it is a heuristic that is currently at play causing tension for Stewards. Iâm seeing a gap that exists between where Gitcoin is along the path to decentralization (not far at all) and the external perceptions of the DAO on its path to decentralization (quite far along).
Put in the fact that other DAOs are investing lots of time, energy and resources into building out decentralized governance structures, no wonder we have a Steward base that is eager to contribute and a DAO that is unclear about how those Stewards can plug in.
From a recent post:
But our decentralization is progressive - I do not believe that making this transition is a good idea at this time, but I do believe that in the next 3-7 years using Gitcoin to fund Gitcoin should be a goal.
Proposed Path Forward
To address these challenges, I suggest Gitcoin takes the following steps to improve meaningful Steward engagement:
- Define clear Steward responsibilities: Work with CSDO and Gitcoin Stewards to create a comprehensive document that clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of Stewards. This should include expectations for participation in discussions, proposal reviews, and other governance activities.
- Side note: we will also explore the use of the title âStewardâ since this word can be easily misconstrued to be beyond the scope of the original intention of a Gitcoin Steward.
- Provide comprehensive onboarding and training:
- New Stewards: We will design and offer a structured onboarding and training program for new Stewards. This program will cover the basics of Gitcoin governance (tools, processes, etc.), as well as specific skills and knowledge that Stewards will need to be effective.
- Old Stewards: Resurface key internal strategic docs & positioning to help them understand who Gitcoin is now (vs. who they were in the past) and share governance documentation around Steward roles & responsibilities
- Identify problem spaces for Steward support: Work with the CSDO team to identify problem spaces that can be either consulted on or decided by Gitcoin Stewards.
- Explore incentives for Steward engagement: Once problem spaces have been identified, an exploration will be conducted around introducing incentives for Stewards to participate in governance. This could include financial rewards, recognition, or access to exclusive benefits.
Conclusion
Iâm hopeful that by addressing these challenges and implementing these strategies, Gitcoin can create a more inclusive, engaged, and effective governance structure that leverages the collective wisdom of its community of Stewards to drive the projectâs success.
Please leave any comments/questions/feedback you have about anything above. This post is intended to be part of a larger conversation about Stewardship at Gitcoin.
Appendix A: Notes from the Call
Stewards want to help make decisions and create outputs
- âOutputs (report) should be succinct & not overly verboseâ
- âEvery call should have inputs (Information) and Outputs (Decisions or Concrete Next Actions)â
- âAsync context in advance (Loom?), then discussion on live call if neededâ
- âKPIs, Action items needed by stewards, runway, budget vs actualâ
- âSpecific asks of the stewards (e.g., weâre hiring for X role, help us)â
Less products, more org strategy & governance (and GG as well)
- â- big discussions and debates on calls. ie strategy and future forward thinkingâ
- âLess tactical updates. Those can be provided in a memo before a callâ
- âguided discussions on controversial gov & comms topicsâ
- What are you particularly interested in at Gitcoin?
Less updates, more breakouts
- âOne high-context person giving a TLDR on the highest level updatesâ
- â- bullet point updates in advanceâ
- âAsync context in advance (Loom?), then discussion on live call if neededâ
Less frequent, more impactful meetings
- Open to changing to every 2 months or every quarter
- Every month also still works (as long as there is something to discuss)
Steward incentivisation is a concern
- Not all Stewards agree, but it is a factor for some
- Doesnât necessarily have to be payment, can be IRL meets, etc.