So i’ve already weighed in the incubation thread (here) on why I think its important for the DAO to vote on this and attempt to clarify any ambiguity around the standard workstream leader definition.
To respond to a few of the comments in this thread from over the weekend:
theoboldfrazier:
I would change this to say, “The Workstream leader shall be delegated the authority by governance to have full discretion over how an approved budget is spent within the bounds of that which is explicitly outlined in a proposal”
Without a change to that specific language, I would not vote for this proposal.
Im not sure that this language makes a huge difference. IMO the workstream leader should have very broad authority over the budget of the workstream they lead and I don’t think adding this helps much with the definition. Instead I think the bounds of any particular leader can always be delineated further in a workstream specific proposal and I don’t think it makes sense to bound it any further on the standard definition side.
mcchadwick:
The primary issue that I take with this is the combination of sweeping responsibility and onset of effect. As I’ve explained at length in the previous forum post , the terms outlined here do not provide adequate checks against the authority granted to workstream leaders under this proposal. It is not clear that this extent of authority is at all necessary for workstream leaders to wield, and the potential for abuse is obvious.
While this may be appropriate for some workstreams, this is not generally applicable, and a problem around the onset of effect arises in the specific case of the engineering workstream. The 14-day delayed onset gives other workstreams that would prefer an alternate operating agreement time to draft a superseding charter. On the engineering workstream, however, the majority involved find these terms to be highly inappropriate, while disagrees. With these terms, is directly incentivized to do nothing during the 14-day period which follows should this proposal pass, triggering the fallback case and granting himself powers which most of those with the relevant subject matter expertise and context on the situation agree that he should definitely not have. If workstream renewal is contingent on a charter being submitted along with the proposal, since the workstream proposal requires buy-in from the contributors, then must work with the contributors to derive a fair operating agreement.
I appreciate 's thoughts on this issue but respectfully disagree about the concerns. I think this responsibility already exists for WS leaders within the DAO and the “onset” has really been in effect for a year now and this only clarifies what already exists, as a result I don’t see the responsibility granted by the definition nor the onset of the result as issues here. I also think governance already serves as a more than adequate check and balance on the authority of WS leaders, however I remain open to hearing additional proposals (either to be added to this one or specific to workstreams) that could add further checks like the one I proposed in the earlier thread linked above.
I understand this upsets some of the engineering workstream specifically given the recent changes that wants to institute, but overall I think we need to explicitly clarify that authority for all workstream leaders and that we can weigh in separately on whether we think those workstream leader’s decisions are effective or not. Leaving it ambiguous for any longer than necessary now that contention has come up around definition seems a worse result than letting FOX holders weigh in on this via snapshot from my perspective.
I also understand that various members of the engineering workstream really don’t want the language that puts this into effect in 14 days, but I ultimately think that an item like that is up to governance and not the specific wants of any specific workstream unless they pass a proposal that dictates their workstream works in some different manner (and I think the 14 day delay + this not being up for vote and the time for discussion already had gives ample time for workstreams to suggest other approaches if they don’t want to adopt the standard definition being proposed).
MrNerdHair:
In my view, the role of a workstream leader is not to exercise any more discretion than is absolutely necessary. Whatever local minimum the de facto process of day-to-day administration has evolved towards, workstream leaders have de jure no more authority or discretion than the DAO gives them by the specifics of passed proposals. Make no mistake: this proposal does not represent a clarification of previously existing policy, it is a request for a significant expansion to the mandate given to workstream leaders — and one which should have, in my opinion, been required before the recent unilateral decision to radically alter the Engineering workstream’s capacity to discharge its responsibilities.
As Security workstream leader, I went to great lengths to word the proposals I brought specifically to constrain my discretion as leader as much as possible. I saw myself as having no right to spend money on anything which had not been specifically authorized, and never in excess of the amount authorized for that specific purpose. Frankly, the existence of the notion of a “workstream budget” isn’t even well-defined — workstreams don’t “have budgets”, they execute proposals. It’s purely an administrative convenience that some of those proposals are brought in an omnibus, time-boxed fashions, and that such proposals tend to have the word “budget” in their titles. Most of those delegate significant discretionary power to the workstream leader over the specifics of their execution, and custom and courtesy has dictated that they be brought forward by the workstream leader, but those aren’t fundamental properties.
I appreciate MrNerdHair’s salient thoughts and comments on this topic. I disagree that this is an expansion of authority for workstream leaders as this is how the DAO has operated for over a year, we can argue interpretation all day over what the original workstream docs on the forum and/or wording of specific proposals did or did not implicitly grant and this is precisely why clarifying this now explicitly is so important from my perspective. Specifically what is “necessary” for a workstream leader’s authority is exactly the clarification up for debate here, some in the DAO (including myself) think this type of definition is necessary for a WS leader to be effective on behalf of the DAO, others disagree, that is fine but it is also exactly why I think we need a resolution to this via governance imminently.
I understand and appreciate the prospective view about workstream leaders having more limited authority, but IMO if we don’t give control over the budget of a workstream to the workstream leader we are ultimately hamstringing their ability to deliver on their goals so much as to make them ineffective and I cannot currently support a definition that does not give WS leaders that authority as a result.
Neverwas:
GM I have tried to stay out of this because more seems to be going on beneath the surface and could have issues directly tied to a single WS. At this point though I do not see cooler heads prevailing and I believe that with the attention and fracturing tone of discussion, I as a community member and a contributor would like to discuss this further before pushing this to governance vote.
I don’t personally know the time sensitivity other than Workstreams are up for renewal and the determined need is greater than the time allotted to have a larger community discussion, I of coarse would debate that, we have gone this long with multiple renewals and I believe we can find solutions. If it is beyond this time sensitivity and has to do with DAO fiscal responsibility or determined need of Treasury capability, I do feel the community needs to figure this out.
I don’t know if this will be moved forward to governance at this point, but feel that pushing this to vote or the sense of rushing this through because we can is probably not the best look or alternative. This is just my thoughts and I might not know all of the details or context, but isn’t that the point? If you are asking the community to vote something into governance and something that is beyond a single WS purview how can we vote not knowing the context and having the ability to look at alternative solutions.
That said I do see a lot of disagreement but not allot of presented alternatives besides workstream contributors having concern for verbiage and also presenting with layers of subtext and lack of direct context for voters that seems to revolve around the engineering WS.
I hope that we as a public community acting as a DAO can grow stronger through this, but we do need to deal with it as such, passion and emotion aside we need to have meaningful dialect and present viable pathways forward. We are all beings and don’t have to agree on all points but with the 1 year anniversary a few moments away we can do better communicating, collaborating, and compromising.
Neverwas I respect and appreciate that you want to move the conversation towards one more of unity and agreement, I would love to see that here too and generally is the approach I always want to see in governance discussion. However I do think there are times when something is so contentious between 2 or more sides that governance is required to clarify for the DAO to move forward, and this seems like one of those circumstances to me where we have a disagreement about the scope of authority of elected WS leaders between a specific WS leader in engineering and those he wants to allocate funds away from to complete his mission as he sees appropriate. We can disagree all day long about whether that decision is correct or not, but I think it is imperative that the DAO has clarity on this topic in regards to at least what the authority of a WS leader is or is not.
In the end this is the best proposal I have seen so far to clarify this issue and let the DAO move forward so right now I do believe it should move forward to snapshot if it has the requisite votes in ideation and be decided by holders of FOX. I do, however remain open to alternative definitions or alternative workstream proposals that define WS leader differently for their specific workstream, just so far I have not seen any other positive options proposed, only critique of the current definition (which is fine, but I think seeing alternatives side by side is far more likely to move the conversation forward in some manner at this point). I know mentioned he was working on an alternative, so I look forward to reviewing that with fresh eyes once it is posted.