Hey all!
Thanks for putting this together, I think itâs a really great starting point. One thing I noticed that the current council only reflects a couple of workstreams (mainly FDD and DAO Ops) and misses quite a few highly active stewards. As @kyle noted some folks are also no longer working for the DAO although they may have been when the snapshot was taken.
Especially given that weâre talking about this council being in place for a relatively long period (180 days) Iâd like to propose an amended selection process, based on the success weâve seen in CSDO and other governance bodies. In fact, we could view âSCâ as principally guiding strategic decisions while âCSâ guides tactical ones. Take this as just one option as we continue to iterate towards the best possible stewards council.
Step 1: Workstream Nomination. Each workstream nominates (via any process they see fit, one lead for each meeting (monthly). They are required to have prepared a list of key strategy questions (e.g. fraud might ask âshould we have an open data service that helps us streamline Sybil data analysisâ; PGF might ask âwhat kinds of rounds should the program run that it isnât thinking about and whyâ; GPC might ask âhow do we ensure weâre building best with the communityâ). Workstreams risk slashing if they donât come through with these questions consistently.
Step 2a Steward Nomination, Each workstream nominates at most 3 stewards to go into a pool. Each steward must be a non-active workstream member (i.e. an âindependentâ member). This allows us to bring in folks that can provide strong external guidance and relevant domain expertise that might not be present internally. We can also require that selected stewards meet some threshold of activity or delegation.
Step 2b: Steward Nomination. Chosen stewards go into a QV, and workstreams nominate 3 members each to vote. We can even dogfood our own quadratic voting site for this.
Step 3: Ratification. We elect that council in a forum post + snapshot vote as usual. Crucially, if at any time someone needs to step down we can simply use the previous vote rankings to determine who might take their place.
IMO this wouldnât take very long to organize and might yield better results than relying mainly on the health cards. For context, I originally designed the health cards as a way to track total steward engagement, but didnât necessarily intend for it to be used in this kind of election process when I first conceived of it (though I think itâs a good input). Would love any thoughts and feedback on this approach.