[GCP-007] Fund Thin Governance for Season 18 (plus option to add in S19)
Governance as a “service” was previously a part of the DAOops workstream which was sunset in S17. This being the case, we look to the GCP process as a mechanism to fund base operational governance, while leaving room for aspirational governance innovation via subsequent GPC proposals.
When compared to traditional business, governance is one of the key components that changes within the DAO. Broadly, the goal of optimized governance in a DAO is to reduce the friction within the DAO, increase productivity, and to capture the intent of the community in a way that multiplies the network effect with a view towards long term outcomes. To meet this need, this proposal is built in a way to minimally facilitate steward governance, get the greatest value out of our governing bodies, and to act as an impartial arbiter of the governance process. Additionally, this GCP would be staffed in a way to quickly adapt to critical governance outages and some operational improvements.
This is an experiment and we know there are risks associated with using a temporary funding mechanism like the GCP for operational work. An outcome of this experiment will be a recommendation on if GCPs are appropriate for this kind of work or if the DAO should find another way to staff the work.
The three priorities of Gitcoin include Allo, Grants Program, and Passport. In the last three months, Governance has enabled the quadratic selection of the grants round categories, and tested Passport integrations with snapshot enabling quadratic voting. Additional work included helping define the purpose of the Grants program as well as stewarding and reinventing the workstream budgeting process. All four components were in direct support of the three priorities.
From an operational, reporting and oversight perspective, governance orchestrates connections between the workstreams and Gitcoin Steward related to budget approvals and ongoing context via regular connections. Finally, governance is responsible to step in when decisions go astray. Recent examples of this work include helping the DAO and FDD navigate the arrival of new information post vote close via inventing the “reconsideration” process.
The Gitcoin mission is to empower communities to fund their shared needs. Governance has furthered this purpose by co-authoring [GCP-004] Gitcoin Citizens Round which actually enables Gitcoin to fund our own shared needs and once completed, will include updated run books for those communities who wish to run their own stand alone rounds.
Governance enables frugality and better decision making by providing stewards with tools, templates and forums to gain context and give valuable insight to contributors. Examples of this include monthly steward meetings, a new steward onboarding program, and budgeting cheat sheets.
Building on the network while doing this work for Gitcoin, governance deliberately builds and shares Gitcoin assets externally so that others might fork our success. Recent examples of this include the daostewards.xyz capability being forked by Optimism, sharing Post-vote “reconsider” process and becoming a delegate for Optimism.
Left unchecked, governance (as well as other central functions) historically expand to an unworkable bureaucracy. For this reason, this proposal intends to experiment with a thin operational governance layer, while retaining capacity for later emergent project work.
We propose operational governance is funded to do four things:
- Manage and improve steward engagement in governance
- Continue to iterate the Steward Council concept to drive maximum value - or kill it.
- Facilitate the governance process, including budgeting cycles and reviews
- Address governance outages and propose experiments & improvements.
Note: this proposal does not include allocation to significant governance project work. Examples of “significant” project work might include rebuilding the DAO budgeting process, developing an approval matrix, and architecting new governance models or protocol research. This scope is intentionally narrow so that we ensure governance operations do not bloat. Additional governance work can be executed during the season, but it would require a deliberate project plan and be limited to a specific GCP.
- Retain high context governance contributors who understand the DAO
- Continue refining and adjusting governance structures for the future
- Existing work on stewardship and steward engagement can continue
- Quickly adapt to emergent governance needs as we approach the protocol creation
- Funding this proposal could be overpaying for a service that could be delivered by a lower context / lower cost resource.
- Using the GCPs process to fund high-context work could lead to loss of resources due to the seasonal instability of the role.
- Not funding this work will mean the existing work will have to be stopped or reassigned to existing resources.
An estimate based on history suggests this work can be done with 0.5 FTE (full time equivalent), or approximately 20 hours per week for the three month period.
- 20800.25 (3 months) = 5200.5 (50% allocation of one person) = 260 hours total
- 260 hours at $80 per hour = $20800 (Shawn)
*based on an estimated 2080 hours for a full time equivalent @ 52 weeks per year
Total request: $20800
Payments would be triggered at the end of each completed month, triggered by a Tally vote.
This role will require access to “core contributor” tools such as email, g-suite, miro, discord, etc. There is no consideration for vacation, travel, training, severance, conferences, or other ancillary DAO / workstream contributor benefits. This proposal does not include ancillary payments for other governance operations (example, Steward Council).
Ideally this role would join the CSDO, but CSDO decides membership to that body.
The season would start on May 1 and conclude on July 31. There would be no severance should the service not be renewed after July 31st, 2023.
Customer acceptance criteria: What metrics, outcomes, or deliverables should be used to verify the project met expectations? Said another way, after the project is complete, what measures will you use to confirm the project met or did not meet the outcomes listed in the “motivation”.
Activities to be reported via monthly governance reports (the end of each period)
- Summary of governance proposals
- Summary of steward and steward council activities
- Summary of assets / work completed in support of Allo, Grants Program, Passport
- Percent change in voter participation (unique voters + tokens cast)
- Delivery of a steward engagement plan, inclusive of experimentation proposals
- Go / no go / change decision on v4 of the Steward Council (plus execution if needed)
NOTE: Based on a request from the Steward Council, we are including an option to fund this operational work for season 18 and for 19, with the inclusion of a mid-point review at the end of Season 18. All components of the proposal apply, however the timeline of this option would be from May 1 to October 31.
For - Fund Gitcoin Governance $20800 for Season 18
For - Fund Gitcoin Governance $41600 for Season 18 & 19
Against - Do not fund Gitcoin Governance for Season 18 or 19