This is a simple proposal to amend SCP-92, Definition of Workstream Leader, to add the following clarifications:
Workstream leaders do not have the ability to make decisions that have explicitly been disapproved by governance unless the disapproval was explicitly superceded in a subsequent proposal.
Workstream Leaders do not have any unique privileges relative to other community members that aren’t explicitly granted to them in SCP-92 or any future amendments to the Definition of Workstream Leader.
While it may seem like this additional clarification is not necessary, this was called into question this past week and is apparently not something that every workstream leader agrees with. I feel pretty strongly that this is not only how we have been operating, but how we must operate. Otherwise, what is the point of governance and the DAO going forward?
Happy to add more context or answer any questions, but wanted to post this to Incubation ahead of the governance call on August 24th and start the clock so this proposal can be ratified as soon as possible.
On point 1, we might need to add additional verbiage about what “disapproved by governance” means with respect to subsequent and potentially superseding proposals.
E.g. it might be that a superseding proposal needs to explicitly state that it is superseding/reversing/amending a decision made in a previous proposal, which would help remove ambiguity as to a proposal’s intent.
Gm and thanks for swift feedback @0xApotheosis , that’s a great point. Do you think this revised sentence addresses?
- Workstream leaders do not have the ability to make decisions that have explicitly been disapproved by governance unless the disapproval was explicitly superceded in a subsequent proposal.
I think that’s reasonable wording
While being more accurate is good, it does seem odd to have to clarify that no contributor, Workstream Leader or not, can claim rights over the DAO’s activities that the governance hasn’t explicitly given them, nor can they override an explicit governance decision without another governance decision as explicit (which means it shall leave no room for interpretation or confusion on the overriding).
I’m calling it odd because if it was not already the case, there would be no point in voting on anything after we’d elected the first Workstream Leader, as they could override or reverse a vote as soon as it finished, including other Workstream’s creations/renewals. I hope nobody thinks that it is how the DAO is working right now… but I don’t mind clarifying it, so I’m for this amendment.