Both this and @bobjiang idea are great. It would be nice to see iterative progress on these. It would also be nice for us to be able to get the data from all the snapshot vote comments to parse for sentiment and other insights.
Thanks to everyone for the questions and comments. Based on comments, today @krrisis and I adjusted the proposal to include details around “term limits”. For ease of comparison, I provide below the original and adjusted text.
Term length and limits
At present, there are no implied term limits, however this can be included in future updates to this process. Following the initial creation of The Steward Council - Formation & Mandate, the election terms will be from the time the proposal passes for a period of 180 days. Subsequent elections will be held prior to the close of each term to avoid a gap in council coverage.
Term length and limits
Following the initial creation of The Steward Council - Formation & Mandate, the election term for external stewards will be from the time the proposal passes for a period of 180 days. Each successive term will be for the same duration and subsequent elections will be held prior to the close of each term to avoid gaps in coverage.
Participation on the council is limited for external stewards to three successive terms. After a gap of one term, external stewards are eligible to begin a new-three term cycle. This constraint also applies to elected part-time Gitcoin contributors. There are no term limits for internal workstream or Foundation representatives - however it is recommended the workstreams build capability for this work within their organizations.
who is in DAOstewards tool team?
I am strongly interested in this tool actually, and I had a similar prototype previously as https://www.stewardpage.com/steward/0x521aacb43d89e1b8ffd64d9ef76b0a1074dedaf8
would like to discuss more about daostewards tool.
Following our standard processes, the proposal has been posted on snapshot for vote. Please follow this link to cast your vote on this important proposal.
(edited to correct link to snapshot vote)
In general, I’m supportive of where we landed on the council setup, thanks for putting this together @shawn16400!
I do think we can probably streamline comms around how the council is managed at some point + agree with @lefterisjp that the cards in their current form likely need some revision.
One other thing I think could be considered is revising compensation for external contributors. Folks already in the DAO have a lot of opportunities / reasons to be on the council. Folks who are external likely have more on their plates and often (in the case of Gitcoin) find it very difficult to make time to participate with everything else going on. With that in mind I’d recommend we increase the minimum threshold compensation there as a show of good faith.
Supportive on this – but had one comment to potentially help refine things, and I don’t think it changes the proposal in any way:
Those who are interested in being nominated for the Steward Council should flag their interest on this post by including a link to their steward post which can be found here.
Perhaps the opportunity to express interest in being nominated should be marketed / communicated more directly to existing DAO members. I think a lot of people will miss this post in the forum and we want to get as much coverage as possible, IMO.
Thanks @ceresstation for the input, and for the framework leading to this proposal. Related to compensation, we did have some back and forth to figure out what the right rate might be to attract the right experience. One difficulty was trying to estimate the amount of time required to make a consequential impact, especially as we are introducing the workstream ad hoc collaboration meetings. How about this, given we (presumably) will have a framework for compensation, I can take a follow up survey at the end of 60 days to see if an adjustment is needed. Sound about right?
TJ, this comment is spot on and thank you for this push. Commercialization is not my strongest skillset, so I would welcome any ideas/executional effort in this space. Perhaps @CoachJonathan or @Viriya might have someone in MMM who can lend a hand? DMs are open shawn16400#5507. : )
Happy to help with whatever you need!
Btw … I am sorry but I have to ask. Any relation to @tjayrush ?
I still think there is room for improvement, especially on the low compensation as echoed already by @ceresstation but since this is already an improvement on the process and a well thought out plan I am voting FOR it.
haha no but we get that a lot.
I’ve shared it the last couple of Gitcoin Digests and I can highlight in this week’s Digest! Goes out to about 1k subscribers, mostly DAO contributors, stewards, and those interested in Gitcoin governance things. The content team at MMM is working to get the Digest and governance happenings out to the Gitcoin community with more visibility
To note, this proposal passed snapshot with ~99.8% approval rate.
664 unique votes
~8.7M GTC tokens cast.
And thank you to all the commenters & voters who took the time to participate in Gitcoin Governance.
you can see the results of the vote here
For next steps,
Here is a rough outline of the schedule ahead. We are working with the workstreams to identify their internal appointees and external candidates. This schedule attempts to move with some haste, but also recognizes we are in the midst of the budget season.
Thanks @shawn16400 for bringing much-needed clarity & structure to this process. This is awesome. I’m excited to see what holds for the future of the council!
^ Based on the above guidance, I want to flag my interest in being part of Steward Council for the upcoming season - my steward post is here. I assume I would be an “external steward” since I am not currently a full-time DAO member as I’m on parental leave through March 2023.
I wanted to take a moment to give an update on this process and to let the community know of a delay. Yesterday, on 11.08 CSDO approved shifting the schedule back one week out to help workstreams complete nominations. In short:
- This is a new process and finding domain-experienced nominees is taking some time
- Asking the workstreams to find nominees during the budget season was not a good idea
- Adding a week to confirm high quality nominees is preferred vs. continuing with the schedule
- Finally, this move will help decouple the next round of elections from the budget season
Net: below you will find the new schedule.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Okay, I got what this means. Stipend here means, on top of their existing payment from Gitcoin
GTC compensation will vary depending on the current relationship to Gitcoin :
Existing full time Gitcoin contributors will receive a $200 stipend per month
Existing part time Gitcoin contributors will receive a $400 stipend per month
Non Gitcoin contributors will receive a $750 stipend per month
Hi @php thanks for the comment and yes you are correct. This is our starting point and I expect to receive feedback on this remuneration as we learn how this team will operate.
Thanks! Would be good if (on top of existing stream renumeration) is added so readers can get it instantly…(I know the vote has passed)
Just want to give a shout-out to @shawn16400 for his comms & coordination throughout the nomination, election, and onboarding process