Refactoring Gitcoin DAO: Evolving the FDD

🤖 DAO Governance and Vision
10

Let’s also compare @kevin.olsen

  • Create an ODC workstream with its own budget.
  • The Sybil Analysis spin-out is broken out for further incubation as its own workstream OR Data science and Sybil Analysis move into the Passport ‘customer’ workstream and iterate within the context of a product delivery organization.
  • Pause Sybil Legos until there is Product/Engineering leadership with a proven track record of delivering production software that can produce a project plan and budget that the DAO can review and approve.

vs @DisruptionJoe vision:

ODC builds open source projects.

  • Exploratory Data Analysis
  • Analysis Legos
  • Data Extraction Infrastructure

FDD maintains data infra & data products.

  • Open Source Scoring Applications
  • Ad Hoc Round Analysis
  • BI Tool Maintenance
  • Prioritization and Specifications for Fraud Defense Analysis & Builds from ODC/DevRel

FDD Service Spin Out

  • Freemium Model Product
  • Consulting Services

The first obvious thing that stands out is that they don’t seem that different at a high-level. The primary differences are:

  • In @kevin.olsen version, “Analysis Legos” is gone
  • “Sybil Analysis […] its own workstream OR […] move into the Passport ‘customer’ workstream” seems to be referring to what @DisruptionJoe calls “FDD maintains data infra & data products.”. The “its own workstream” is identical, whereas the “move into the Passport ‘customer’ workstream” seems to be a contentious takeover play. Perhaps this can be fixed by simply removing the “OR […]”

The part that seems not clear/potentially in disagreement is how much time should be given to FDD to complete its pivot to its final form. It doesn’t sound like the thing quoted from @DisruptionJoe was meant as something that would be done this month. Is this an ultimatum to accelerate it?

Also, to be clear, would it also hold in this case that we “do move forward with splitting our workstream, implementing budgeting and payroll changes to establish two workstreams. But, we do not make any changes to the way contributors organize and work until after ETHDenver.”, as was suggested in the proposed GPC refactor? That seems unnecessarily confusing for stewards. How would one “not make any changes to the way contributors organize and work until after ETHDenver” if one budget proposals can have a different voting outcome than the other?

Finally, I would add that what I see as an outside steward as being sensible for something like FDD is pretty similar to what I quoted from @DisruptionJoe, except “Ad Hoc Round Analysis” sounds like it belongs in the Spinout.

2 Likes