Where are these notion homepages? Theyāre not visible on the gitcoinDAO homepage (at least as far as I can tell) and I donāt remember it being advertised anywhere.
To start, I want to clarify for the audience that I am reviewing this budget in the role of a steward who is assigned to review DAOops S17 budget.
This feedback is intended for the āDRAFTā phase of the review process wherein feedback still has an opportunity to work its way into the proposal before it is posted as an āINTEGRATEDā proposal and put up for vote on Snapshot.
I am hesitating on supporting this budget as is. Here are a few key reasons:
-
The increase in in the seasonal budget amount for the last 2 budgets during a time when the CSDO agreement was to have ālighterā seasonal check-ins because we are focusing on launching the protocol and committed to with the expectation that we keep our budgets flat.
-
There is a lot of āextraā in the likely projects/tasks and the most important work doesnāt stick out.
-
I would like to see more concrete planning in terms of the DAOops plan to break into end to end accountable scopes of work.
Increase in season budget total
Perhaps this increase is due to team retreat expenses? I canāt tell from this document.
I do know we hired a technical support lead. This specific call out would help me understand and justify an increase.
Overall, Iām not personally happy with breaking the commitment to keep flat budgets with the lighter check-in to the tune of almost 30% over two seasons! However, I do not know if the reason is legitimate due to the budget not taking space to call out the NEED for the increase.
Most important work doesnāt stick out
It feels like a group of individuals with individual accountabilities and not a team. This is a mistake I have made in the past and @tigress has been great at pushing FDD in the right direction. As I read this, it feels like it comes from the same place where our problems have - a need to justify the value of the individuals rather than the value of the team.
Iām not sure what part of our system does this, but it is very clear when you look at the budgets of the workstreams which have little fear of a poor outcome when the vote happens vs the workstreams which have much lower delegation or influence.
This is a symptom level problem and can easily be fixed. However, understanding the root cause is MUCH deeper than a DAOops bugdet problem. My intention in calling out the root problem is to allow others to recognize a systemic issue while also HELPING this workstream to mitigate the problem.
No future planning for post protocol launch
Iād like to see a future plan for end to end accountable workstreams
I do not expect you to change structure this season. Other budgets either have addressed the issue for this season or are painting a picture for the future. What might DAOops look like?
It occurs to me that almost all the functions that DAOops is responsible are in support of key stakeholder groups:
- Governance = Token Holders & Stewards
- People Ops & Tooling = Contributors
- Support = Users
Are we putting the right amount of effort to each of these constituencies?
Does the DAOops cover over multiple distinct scopes of work provide positive sum results?
DAOops could be more proactive in addressing upcoming issues
Another item not mentioned here is that CSDO has an issue coming up that will likely benefit from a proactive response. As FDD dissolves, this means a change in the representation at CSDO.
Which workstreams will have 2 representatives on CSDO? What if a workstream is only 2-3 people? As we approach having smaller workstreams, we have the opportunity to set expectations in advance rather than cause concern.
Another example would be to address potential elephants in the room. With two of the top three token delegated stewards in the same workstream (GPC Passport), the move to push FDD to split up would have also consolidated CSDO power. I am stepping out of the role, so this is not an issue this time. I would like to see us learn from this potential problem and have DAOops proactively find solutions.
Example 3 - It is clear to see that the stewards are asking for a lower burn rate. (Though we donāt know if that is a few louder ones on the forum or a majority or an informed minorityā¦) A lower burn rate has to come from somewhere. The largest token delegates are currently incentivized to push the other workstreams to downsize.
Clarification based on feedback: This is intended to point out a systemic conflict of interest that I would love to see addressed. I personally believe that our current top delegates have Gitcoinās best interest in mind. Even the ones who are paid by a workstream and have a direct conflict of interest. We are lucky to have missionaries, not mercenaries.
However, I also do personally believe that this systemic problem could be addressed head on BEFORE it turns into something ugly. Mercenaries will find their way into a system that has systemic weaknesses like this. That is why I bring it up here as an OPPORTUNITY for DAOops to better understand the tradeoffs of the current system and identify opportunities to mitigate risk and stabilize intended outcomes.
How do we ensure that the most important work is funded rather than highest delegation workstreams staying alive?
For the record, PGF did quite a bit of downsizing last season and I wouldnāt want to see GPC downsize at this time. (They need a few key hires right now!)
The intention here is to have DAOops proactively address the potential mismatches between the incentives and the current policy.
Iād be happy to take time to discuss this with the team.
2 Likes
Great question @chaselb! As you added as an edit: this is correct - a few seasons back we decided to add reserves to our budgets to deal with some of the uncertainties Saf mentioned. The budgets from the previous seasons are the budgets we requested in the āintegratedā version of our previous budgets. We always express our budgets in USD to avoid the confusion, the way we tried to address this is copied in every request:
āThe amount of GTC requested and the value of the reserves will be adjusted based on the current market value at the time this proposal is moved to Tally using the lower of the current price or the 20 day moving average, whichever is lower.ā
Because you attended the Stewards call you know the answer here Chase 
But for anyone else who is reading up here, this comes from the total budget overview, combining all budgets.
In a pie chart:
Totals and historical numbers for reference:
Note, these are the numbers for the draft budgets, eg MMM has already announced they will decrease their budget for the integrated version.
For people who missed the Stewards call, you can hear me talk about this overview in the recording at the timestamp here.
2 Likes
Really appreciating your eye for detail Chase! The contributor homepage was shared with Contributors, but you should be able to view this here.
The wider Community Hub was owned by MMM and you can find a draft here. With the changes with regard to community engagement no longer being owned by MMM Iām not sure how and if this will continue to evolve, but @CoachJonathan might be able to clarify.
First, thanks to everyone who has commented so far. What @krrisis and I read were thoughtful and urgent calls for DAO Ops to describe how it might evolve in step with the rest of the DAO. DAO Ops is one of the key partners and drivers of the evolution of the DAO, and we recognize that continuing to reinvent our workstream is critical. Weāre very committed to working openly on this, and the following is an attempt to respond to each of the themes raised in the comments above based on what we know now. Next to this, we of course welcome more discussion and questions from Stewards and the wider community, so please keep them coming!
Focus/Prioritization
Historically, DAO Operationsā mandate was broad out of necessity, and in many ways the S17 budget still reflects how we have worked in the past (i.e, DAO Ops taking on many of the general administration costs of the DAO). As we collaborate more on a DAO-wide reorganization and updated Essential Intents this season, weāll clarify our mandate (more likely mandates) across thinner business units. Potential outcomes of this revised focus are that some of the initiatives we lead today will need to be re-organized into different business units, collectively managed by all business units, or automated away entirely.
Preparing for the Future State of the DAO
In short, we would love to see all of these questions answered in the DAO. Accountable workstreams is also one of the reasons we once again made recommendations for a revised budget process in S16.
Weāve heard contributors of the DAO agitate for more of this kind of work over the seasons and with thinner business units in S18, there is potential for us to to play a more forward-looking role in setting the standards for contributor and financial health-related work.
In the meantime, weāll be working with MMM and other other teams to experiment within our Support function, testing out AI-enabled chatting to support donors and grantees from our website.
Budgeting
Agree that an overall P&L would be helpful for the DAO, and based on what we heard in the Steward Monthly Call today, it sounds like you and @kyle may be collaborating on what this may look like. Weād also welcome your input on the financial dashboard we plan to launch by seasonās end.
Thanks for calling this out, as this is indeed an important point to clarify. Our budget for this season increased because we budgeted for:
- The newest member of our team, a Technical Support Engineer who supports the DAOs transition to the protocol, allowing the Passport and Allo Engineering team focus on its future roadmap, and
- The Gitcoin team retreat, a DAO-wide contributor event, following a request from members of the DAO to work on team cohesion and create opportunity for in-person strategizing. DAO Ops is facilitating this event through People Ops and is carrying the cost for the weekend in our budget.
Without these new and one-time costs, the DAO Ops budget would actually have decreased by 25.6%. Important to note that:
- We have consistently underspent while trying to remain highly flexible.
- Since S14 our budget has decreased 44% (approximately $608K in S14 to $389K in S18).
Hiring
We do! @safder leads hiring coordination across the DAO and also supported GPC and DAO Operations in hiring last season. Iām sure he would be happy to chat with you about it.
I think that covers what weāve heard so far but look forward to more discussion.
3 Likes
Thank you for your insightful responses here. Especially this one which moves me from hesitant to fully in support of this budget.
3 Likes
Iām likely to vote no on this proposal.
I donāt think this DAO is operating at a high enough level, and a lot of it is because of legacy structural decisions that did not pan out.
Iām sad about it, because I love the people in this work stream, especially Kris, I LOVE @krrisis, he is one of the most capable and dedicated people that I have ever had the pleasure to work with. We have gone to war together against the elements at burning man! We started Commons Stack together. He literally fainted in my arms once, and I broke my leg in his house!
But in the end, despite our friendship, this work stream has failed to create a decent DAO process and the only option we have to hold it accountable for this is to vote no. Despite my personal reservations.
There was an opportunity to reorganize the DAO to make it more efficient this last season and for some reason this process failed, tho it was in progress. I consider that a huge failure for this work stream to prioritize its core function over other opportunities.
My biggest problem with the DAO operations is that the voting process is this weird yes/no on each work stream which makes voting sort of pointless honestlyā¦ The real DAO work is very very time intensive for everyone involved because it is just a lot of drama on forums and it honestly isnāt so productiveā¦ It shouldnāt be this way. The structure needs to change.
The voting experience is basically,
- Workstream leads spend countless hours putting together a budget and a plan.
- Lots of people talk about it on the forum, many complain about the cost, many hours are wasted by all involved.
- Workstream leads incorporate the feedback if they want and repropose.
- More time wasted on the forum with everyoneās opinions.
- Proposal goes up on snapshotā¦ its yes/no and no one knows what would happen if the vote ends up as a āNoā
- Every major workstream passes itās proposal and the process repeats 2 months later.
There is too much uncertainty to vote āNoā on a critical workstream, and there is no incentive for workstreams to get scrappy and cut costsā¦ they just need to ask for as much as they can get away with.
To counter this, this season I am asking every work stream thisā¦ āWhat would happen if this proposal didnāt pass?ā
Because I honestly donāt knowā¦ and neither does anyone elseā¦ which is an issue IMO that DAOops should have solved a long time ago.
There was one quarter where FDD did a bunch of votes to determine their actual proposal. That was the only time i felt like the DAO had any real strategic oversight into a work stream, and that was not a function of this working group. They did this on the flyā¦ why does it take so long for the reorg to happen.
Soā¦
What will happen if this proposal doesnāt pass?
5 Likes
Hey guys. For this gitcoin budget season I will be following a different approach. I am not happy with how many things have been going in gitcoin and the way budget reviews work so I will either be abstaining or voting No in most budget reviews.
Despite the budget cuts I still think the DAO is burning too much money and it needs to become more lean.
And I completely echo what @griff said above.
1 Like
Is that a rhetorical question?
Afaik the work that DAO Ops does wonāt get done and the people that work in DAO Ops will lose their jobs.
I agree with the overall point that the DAO needs to be reviewing and renewing itself.
I donāt agree with the idea that we should just pull the pin and see what happens. What we know about what will happen isnāt good for the people involved or the work that they are doing. Thatās assuming that Stewards voting no would actually result in a rework of the proposal that was directionally equal to limiting or even ending DAO Ops. Maybe thatās your question?
Overall I continue to feel as I did in the āOver our skisā post from November - it would be useful to be focused on finding product market fit and to adjust accordingly.
Today we have some signs that we are getting there - which is great. And arguably the split of GPC into two smaller workstreams may help accelerate the feedback loop to get there.
That said - we donāt yet have proof or the related predictability that would give us all I think a little more confidence that we should continue to spend.
I cannot point at a burn-down chart afaik from either product workstream for example - although DevRel and othersā efforts are increasing that transparency. Similarly, we donāt see quite yet an end-to-end view of where users come from and how they drop off - although I believe there was some analysis of where users drop off in an internal meeting this week, which is progress.
And the dashboard that DAO Ops says they will be working on this quarter - we should already have it, assuming "itā is along the lines of what has been discussed elsewhere.
And - maybe most importantly - when chatting w/ a workstream lead yesterday we discussed that we donāt yet have GTC utility or revenues. Again, it sounds like from comments by @kyle in this weekās steward call we are getting there. Without that, we donāt have arguably the most important metric or at least a clear north star metric.
In short - rather than YOLO voting no - I would suggest we engage with the workstreams to help them work towards product market fit and, importantly, proof of product-market fit where that should include GTC utility / revenues. I actually think there are signs that we are getting there including the very successful recent Unicef round and much else. While I am all for fiscal discipline, Iād argue that we shouldnāt just pull the pin.
Lastly - I sort of donāt grok the comment
there was an opportunity to reorganize the DAO to make it more efficient and this for some reason failed.
The DAO is splitting one of the 5 workstreams into 2 and transitioning another - FDD - out of existence. And of course, Moonshot was recently integrated into GPC. So by the end of this season, 3/6 of the workstreams from last Fall will have been reorganized - and at least DAO Ops (and I believe MMM as well) are each indicating they are preparing for an upcoming slimming down, the shifting of team members into product-focused workstreams, and so on. In short - the reorg is happening, with FDD acting as asomewhat as a canary in the coal mine this season.
Sorry for the length of the response - I ran out of time editing.
4 Likes
Re: @griff @lefterisjp
Iām still pretty new around here and this is my first budget cycle. But I can sympathize pretty well with the fact that a central inefficiency seems baked into the budget process - and there is certainly a lack of clear consequence to no-votesā¦
It feels to me a bit like Gitcoin is a start-up that is forced to fundraise every quarter - stealing resources and energy away from the core work of building-the-damn thing 
In start-up world itās well known-- if youāre always fundraising, youāre never building, and so where funding in Series A is a huge indicator of having won trust and achieved impressive traction - Series D round is likely an indicator of the opposite. But Gitcoinās got the funding- we already won- but every quarter thereās a reset and weāre failing to absorb the strategic benefit which drives companies to seek runway to begin with.
Gitcoin has long ago won their initial runway and while quarterly check-ins on strategy and course-correction fuel progress, making it tethered to the budget (and therefor heavy on PR, and a source of safety-disruption for the individuals involved) means weāre not really getting the benefits of running full speed at the goalpostā¦
In practice I suspect that this is what would happen if DAO Opsā Budget didnāt pass:
- The work of community management, support, and people-management would cease to get done, or likely be done very incompletely by the other workstreams
-
A toll would be absorbed by the wider Gitcoin community- Discord rooms, Telegram chats, going unanswered. Gitcoinās biggest asset: its reputation-- would be severely endangered.
-
Extra stressors would be added to every workstream lead, and likely delegated partially to a few others besides, making the other workstreams significantly less efficient than they could otherwise be.
-
Morale would be challenged; not improved. Brain drain would result- recruitment of top talent where itās needed would become nearly impossible.
If the team is meant to be lean at the expense of in person and virtual connections (retreat budget, community calls, solid hiring practices etc.) ā there wonāt be a team before long.
@epowell101 I think I tend to disagree on your point that the way forward: āwe engage with the workstreams to help them work towards product market fitā ā
Thereās no āproductā in the nebulous connections of a highly functioning team. But thereās no product possible without a unified and motivated team.
10 Likes
ahh, yes @ale.k I didnāt mean to suggest the team wasnāt crucial for achieving that product market fit - more that tracking progress towards that goal plus GTC utility / revenue would help us know whether we are, well, making progress as a collective. The TL;DR of my post is I think we are making that progress, however it is too hard to tell.
Again it could be @griff was just asking a rhetorical question however I think you answered it pretty accurately.
2 Likes
It is not rhetorical. There are only two scenarios. How can anyone vote no if they donāt know what that option even means. I think it the only way we can have a fair vote is to have a clear understanding of what the result of voting ānoā looks like.
Is itā¦ I think there are reservesā¦ And maybe some would get absorbed into other work streamsā¦
Alsoā¦ If thatās the case, then this is just not a fair vote. It makes voting āNoā way too hard, vote no and you layoff a whole working group and weāre all screwed. What is even the point of voting? We need a better system if this is the case.
This is why I am asking this questionā¦ so I donāt have to yolo the vote. ā¦ and iām asking in every work streamā¦ what happens if we vote noā¦
Doesnāt it seem weird that we have so many details about what voting yes looks likeā¦ but we donāt know what voting know looks likeā¦ I think that is a huge problem.
I wish we had more options than battle it out in the forum and then yes/no.
6 Likes
Well said, without even mentioning that the āfundersā in this case are mostly retail holders of the GTC token and not VC. There isnāt anything wrong with this specific budget and clearly a lot of thought has gone into it. But the fact that this quarterly budget process is still a thing is a massive failing of DAOops more broadly.
3 Likes
This. Exactly this is the problem. Iām supportive of this budget because Iāve seen DAO ops shift its focus to directly addressing governance issues. Shawn has done amazing work with the steward council so far. We will see about the results, but it is experimentation in the right direction.
I trust that the thinking behind those moves can address this particular problem around TINA (There Is No Alternative). I also trust that they will respond to the urgency put forward by yourself, Lefteris, Kevin Olsen and others.
This is not saying, or even asking you to change your line of questioning or vote. My intention here is to share my point of view.
2 Likes
Disclaimer: I am one of the stewards assigned to this budget process.
I think overall there seems to be some (very valid) frustration with how the budget process is currently run. Like @griff is saying, there is no granularity. We either take everything as it is (with some edits as a result of forum discussion), or we vote no and bar the workstream from the entirety of its funding. Also, in general, I think it is strange that we place ultimate budget oversight in the hands of community members without determining whether they have the prerequisite knowledge (both technical and contextual) to make these decisions. I think it would be best for us to separate priority decisions (what we think we should focus on), from monetary decisions (how much we should spend on the work weāre doing). Quite honestly, Iām looking at these financial numbers with no clue as to whether or not they are reasonable or not. How much do comparable organizations spend on this kind of work? What even is a ācomparable organizationā in this case? These are questions I do not have the background to really answer, yet are essential to giving a balanced analysis of this budget.
Further, the week or two we get to analyze these budgets is hardly enough warning to, in the event we are disappointed, say āno.ā Ideally, we would like the workstreams to have some idea well in advance if they are āon trackā or not, as opposed to receiving that feedback all at once every quarter. In the spirit of that, I will vote yes (probably), but with the following stipulations:
- DAO Ops prioritizes fixing the budget process to maximize the usefulness of community input (I do not believe this is on the current list of initiatives/projects)
- If a new budget process is not in place (or at least ready to be implemented) by the end of the quarter, then I will vote no on DAO Ops next quarter.
^ Open to feedback on these stipulations.
To be fair, my vote is largely symbolic, as it is small enough to be insignificant (side note: why assign stewards to review certain budgets if their votes are often insignificant compared to unassigned stewards?). However, I hope the overall thinking behind it will be useful in some way.
3 Likes
Thanks so much to all for the lively discussion under our proposal - while reading these I was nodding yes so many times. There is indeed a lot to solve with regard to DAO governance. The fact that so many Stewards are actively engaging under this post shows how much they care about our mission, and in all sincerity I can only say that this warms my heart, because we do too. This engagement also shows we are making progress: you are asking the hard questions, this is what DAO governance is all about.
Operating a DAO is tough, as DAOs are a new beast and we need to find answers to some of these questions collectively - this is not something just Gitcoin is struggling with, all DAOs are. As @owocki mentioned yesterday, āsolvingā governance is probably as hard as sybil resistance. Iād even argue itās much harder: itās a key reason for why web3 is here, and itās definitely why I am here.
DAO Opsā Impact
So, with this intro letās dive in further. Starting at the top with @griffās comment as Jodi already responded to most of what is above.
I agree mostly with the above sentiment, and thereās a few things that come to mind.
First one I do want to highlight and I hope this does not come across as defensive: I disagree that we failed at reorganizing. I think we have made immense progress under very challenging circumstances, as our DAO has radically evolved over the past year, and so have we - all while being a driver of many of these changes throughout the DAO, as you can see above in our Milestone Report and previous ones, see at the top of the S16 and S15 requests. We have been at the service of the DAO, rolled with the punches, fired and hired, and we did this while constantly reducing our budget (as Jodi points out here) and taking on more responsibilities, with a smaller team than we started out with. This is of course not sustainable in the long run, and this is starting to show.
On legacy structural decisions, agree - the workstreams setup and the key governance elements were set up before DAO Ops even existed. Now we have CSDO and an internal decision making process, but even getting to an official purpose for CSDO and getting this ratified internally took a few seasons. Same on our Purpose and Essential Intents and many other key decisions. We also lost some valuable time along the way by having to rehire and restructure countless times in many areas, but hey, that comes with the territory.
On the past season: I agree we failed at passing a new budgeting process, and we should have prioritized this even more, as you point out Griff, and as Lunacat says here:
True. A lot of work was done here though, as you can revisit here, which included a solution to what you point out here @chaselb:
So this is to be continued in the upcoming season. A very important note on this: it was a CSDO-level decision to stick with the current budgeting process one more round, as we are about to reorganize in S18, which will automatically resolve some of these tensions as it will increase granularity and the ease to say yes/no (more on this further down). This joint decision is one of the key reasons for our āfailureā, but not the only one. We ourselves also recognized pieces were missing in this complex puzzle. On that note, this is a crucial call out. In comparison to other workstreams, DAO Ops is very often the catherder, but not per se the final decision maker when it comes to achieving its own(ed) outcomes.
On the level of Steward governance processes (very much interlinked), I share @DisruptionJoeās sentiment that with Shawn we have some hardcore talent onboard to improve these and we already have, this is a major win only which started to materialize over the past season (so much coming up!).
All of this is however no excuse, we have to do better.
As mentioned, we need more focus, as @J9leger and @DisruptionJoe pointed out as well - we are doing too many things, which results in unsatisfactory solutions, or lack of time to properly execute projects within a season. We are currently picking up speed to move in the direction of thinner workstreams, as hinted at by @kyle in this post.
For S18 we are considering splitting up in two workstreams, one focusing solely on Governance, another one on Operations, which includes people operations, tooling and treasury management. This will most likely also come with some leadership changes, as we totally recognize our own shortcomings in managing these key DAO processes. None of this is set in stone, but already sharing our current thinking for transparencyās sake. We will heavily involve the Steward Council in our thought process (for changes to our and other workstreams). It is a work in progress and cannot happen overnight - we need our upcoming season for this - a lot will be discussed in person during our in-person Denver retreat, which is by the way also covered with this budget. And a lot has already been happening here - again, with deep strategic involvement of DAO Ops along the way, as Evan points out:
On the voting process
I can only nod here and agree - all of the below is fair and itās massively inefficient:
First point is what I mentioned above: we will be, and are rapidly evolving into thinner workstreams, which will make it easier to give more granular feedback, as you will have less to grok at one time. Next to this we are continuing to revisit and optimize all governance processes, both internally (CSDO) as well as on a Steward level and are heavily investing in Steward engagement (getting more of your expertise helps us - the Steward Council is just one step here). Reworking the budgeting process and ratifying this is a key outcome, as you can read above. I am very happy that CSDO decided not to pass the linked budget proposal, as it was doomed to fail. But I know we would be held accountable for this today, and this is okay, and fair.
I know none of these answers are āenoughā, but we can only point out that we have increased our budget for governance, and it is our number one focus for this upcoming season. The upcoming structural changes to the DAO and increased focus on governance in and by itself will hopefully help to satisfy some of the questions here.
On what will happen if you vote no
Because we are making key decisions in Denver you will get news very soon on our reorg. So just not getting any budget right now would be highly disruptive. Our reserves will not be able to cover 3 months. One month is already used to cover one month of salaries, because we have a legacy delay in payouts cross-dao of one month (and yes, we know this needs fixing). So we have one month left, which can probably cover part of the monthly salaries, the expenses of our retreat. Things like Steward compensation, professional development and many other things will be paused.
On this:
As mentioned, thinner workstreams and an adapted budget flow will make yes/noās less heavy and disruptive. We need those noās, we need Stewards who are critical! And we need to discuss with Stewards on how to get there. This is why we have the Steward council, and more initiatives are coming.
Related to this:
We now have (1) monthly steward calls where we update you on progress - and continue to ask for feedback on how we can make these more interactive, how we can make adjustments as you see fit, we have (2) a biweekly Steward Council plus ad-hoc check-ins with Stewards, and we welcome all feedback in between, we also have (3) monthly CSDO Digests in this forum and (4) we have our monthly DAO Digest, which we are - yet again - revamping in this upcoming season. All of these are meant to involve and engage you. It is however, as @ale.k also points out above important to keep this balance between defending our budgets and actually getting the work done. But we are listening.
So tl;dr - right now a no vote would mean that
-
a -either we rework the budget and cut some minor initiatives the top voters deem unnecessary and we repropose.
b - we put up our budget on snapshot per initiative and pass what can get passed, rework the noās. -
we cut major initiatives and many things come to a screeching halt in the midst of a reorg, and we spend a few weeks to explain what the impact will be of these cuts, leading to increased inefficiency. We then re-propose and pass this budget.
-
or we decide to entirely stop DAO Ops - which means emergency mode for the entire DAO, for some of the reasons outlined by @ale.k and @epowell101 above, so I wonāt repeat those (this response is getting very long
).
So we do hope our budget will be passed, ideally with no changes or minor ones - if you can let us know what to drop for this season. To be honest, this is not for the psychological safety of our contributors - although we do care, however as Stewards this is not your role - but because we have a lot lined up. Even if itās not always visible, we are making massive progress, operational change on a decentralized level is hard. Weāve got work to do and thank you for the reminder.
Once again, all the criticism is valid, and welcomed. 
Both @Jodi and myself will happily jump on a call with any of you - @griff you have an unopened dm waiting for you, and a call scheduled with @J9leger later today.
7 Likes
Thanks for this Kris. I appreciate your open response to all of this criticism (it is not easy).
I will be voting yes on this proposal. Iām not really sure whether or not it is necessary to cut some of the initiatives shown on the request, so Iāll defer that to the other stewards engaged here.
It seems like you all have a lot of unknown/ambiguous work coming up (lots of decisions being made in Denver). Have you left enough room on your plate to take up this work when it comes?
If you had to cut 10% (as far as time/effort required goes) of the projects/initiatives shown in your budget request, what would you cut? Why? What would be the impact of that? If the impact is low, why leave it on?
2 Likes
Great to hear Chase, appreciated!
Yes. Iāll be doubling down on governance, our key focus and the area where much of this ambiguity is situated, and @shawn16400, whose hours weāve increased, will be my sparring partner. Next to the continued support of Jodi on all DAO Ops topics, we hope many of our top Stewards will continue to step up to the challenge too.
The simple answer is that we already cut all the āfatā in the previous seasons. As discussed just now with @J9leger we think what is left is all high impact, but often invisible. Itās not our main focus, but it is mission critical, itās what makes us āflowā. Professional development of the team, or organizing a retreat, or reviewing access, setting up a discord logic, creating norms and values, documenting procedures and increasing internal and external transparency, ā¦ all of this might seem superfluous from the outside (even from the inside), but it is not.
It is what turns degens into regens, mercenaries into missionaries (Ā©ļø @DisruptionJoe 
), itās what turns a DAO into an Impact Network.
3 Likes
Thx Kris, you are an incredible professional and this was a fantastic and informative response. I still have to vote no, and i donāt think there is anything that can change my mind :-/
2 or 3 are the only options here IMOā¦ and I lean towards 3. I hope that other workstreams can some how absorb some of the work and team members from the work stream.
I am hoping for a move to more product focused teams that have more autonomy to be scrappy. If this proposal doesnāt pass, it will undoubtedly cause a lot of stress on other workstreamsā¦ but I donāt see any other way to pivot and maintain accountability given the process in front of us.
On a side note, this is also helping to reduce the spend of Gitcoin, which IMO is still too large given the output and market conditions. There are obviously important responsibilities that this workstream is doing that have to be done, the other work streams can hopefully band together to support these tasks and retain some of the talent that lies in DAOops.
This all sucks, there is no good solution, but the best of the bad options we have in front of us IMO is to vote no on DAOops this season 
1 Like