a.) We should actively invite distinct thoughts, approach and conversation points vs looking to insulate among familiar, comfortable patterns, and individuals/groups. Paying attention not to just outwardly say that it is welcome, but provide actual support and promotion of these actions vs working to silence them.
b.) It should be a priority to challenge others within the community and holding the loudest or powerful “voices” accountable for actions taken within governance. It is very easy to conflate comfort and complacency with stability and safety.
c.) Look to lessen or remove the constant sense of urgency to the governance system. Preparation, planing, and seeking those with capability in organizational experience, strategic planing, and bridge building vs gate keeping, misinformation, and position holding should be a priority. Creating a constant sense of urgency can be a tool of control (don’t think to hard just react! Oh and this name is familiar so they must be right) all under the guise of ease of use, less effort, and speed of process. Increasing speed through removing needed effort in greater comprehension or removing the resistance of thought in this case doesn’t mean decoupling complexity instead frequently leads to loss of quality and meaningful change vs incremental controlled or ironically very slow change. Dangerous examples; Waiting to the last few weeks or even days for a WorkStream renewal to be posted or removing time for discussion periods in favor of small spot check votes, because we are just to busy to focus on operating outside our safety silos or comfort zones. These are just excuses for poor management ability. You can be great for your Siloed team, but that doesn’t make you a great organization leader or member of that organization, even if you have allies or forged alliances with other “core” groups or members.
The continuation of the proposal process responsibilities fall two fold to the voting community to challenge and or offer discussion points to aid and create the ability for informed determinations. And secondly for the proposer to make time and effort in reply within proper interactions allowing for that discussion/debate to be shared in the aiding of making informed determinations. Governance should take time and not be rushed for connivence, as it has lasting consequences. If voters are simply reacting and relying on the proposer and or proposal snapshot to make a determination it is a failure of governance, not an automation of a process and certainly should not represent the A in DAO. If the voters don’t want to be bothered with becoming informed and handling the responsibility of owning and operating an organization, then most likely our governance process through tokenization needs to be reevaluated/reworked or you have also failed as a Decentralized Organization.
benefit of the ideation change is adding more time to. overall going from 11 to 12 days. to pushing more conversation on discord is good first step/ incubatuin was never meant to be a req part when started. advice section etc.
I believe that they are all actionable suggestions, I didn’t realize that I had submitted a proposal to the community and don’t believe that it was classified as such, this is a discussion. As such I believe that the approach would need proper discussion and determination as a whole community because I am not looking to speak as a whole representative of the community. But I can pull out a few things if needed for the sake of it;
“a.) We should actively invite distinct thoughts, approach and conversation points vs looking to insulate among familiar, comfortable patterns, and individuals/groups. Paying attention not to just outwardly say that it is welcome, but provide actual support and promotion of these actions vs working to silence them.”
For this, first comes a reckoning and understanding that this is desired as a whole. If only a few participate then it will not work. This also can encompass many different aspects. I would say that proposers should be held accountable for follow up communication and I would say required to respond when directly questioned or challenged within a documented context like the forum. They shouldn’t be allowed to dismiss context out of connivence or even the guise, or self determination of “being to busy” It is in service to the community that the proposal was submitted hopefully, so they should be ready to be of service.
If you have consistently few “arbitrary number for the sake of it” less than half a dozen very pro comments only, during a period of questioning or ideation, and very little interaction besides the “I support this” comments, ok the blatant and strange signaling that determinations are already made or that pressure is purposely being exerted by larger voters to stop any further conversation all be it as wasted effort. Echo chamber red flag #1.
First that shouldn’t be allowed in a determination period set aside for level and legitimate conversation about a proposal and what it can become through community discord and even I will say it, compromise. Second this time as I understand is used to better explain and In most cases provide answers not rally your cohorts to back your play and silence any concerns justified or not.
If you constantly reach quorum on the first voting attempt with hundreds, even close to thousands % over you might
Have a very easy to see quorum miscalculation.
Echo Chamber red flag
Not allowing WorkStream renewals to be placed with very limited time to expiration or threat to expiration. And possibly a higher quorum threshold than even the normal proposals for any WorkStream proposal or renewal.
I will leave it at that for the moment, even though I do enjoy the comment or insinuation that I have seen a number of times about if it isn’t offered as directly actionable at the start of a conversation then it isn’t worth the effort of discussing further as a community. This also is a very direct if not subtle attempt of dissuading general conversation in the community, as I am clearly aware that I have only presented one official proposal many moons ago as a form of governance. Sorry if you misunderstood it as such.
I understand that discord has a sense of immediacy when used (attention spans are short) but it isn’t a good medium for documenting conversations, having longer or in-depth expression of though/ideas or for those not sitting in it constantly for hours on end. It also as we all know is very centralized and can be removed at discord’s discretion and determination with little or no recourse.
Also an additional day for a global community to be able to see, reply and then receive additional information that can be seen digested not just by ones involved in the current conversation, but also the larger community is I would say very funny. As stated
“Increasing speed through removing needed effort in greater comprehension or removing the resistance of thought in this case doesn’t mean decoupling complexity instead frequently leads to loss of quality and meaningful change vs incremental controlled or ironically very slow change.”
As stated very few within the community that are not core contributors are probably taking the time or effort to be involved within the process and to that I would even question if it isn’t a popularity or me vs them mentality. We should be looking into causation of that vs how we can make it easier to get things though the process.
I had typed incubation when i meant ideation (corrected now) but the fact that incubation was never meant to be a requirement when starting out was then and just that, during inception and transition from a centralized organization, with a lot of core contributors being legacy members, I would hope as time passed the need for larger community conversation and collaboration became more valued and important. Also as stated:
“It is very easy to conflate comfort and complacency with stability and safety.”
Thanks as always for the conversation, I do appreciate it
You aren’t going to get anywhere @Neverwas - you’re dealing with a legal fall-guy situation between @Beorn and the “DAO” members. Futher-more you are trying to see a DAO that doesn’t exist. The entire structure was created so that ShapeShift didn’t go bankrupt while distributing a token to existing centralized (AG) employees to keep them from filing for unemployment. Beyond that - investors that are part of the ‘foundation’ are all ShapeShift AG investors that oversee everything the fake DAO does. of the ‘foundation’ are all ShapeShift AG investors that oversee everything the fake DAO does.
Thanks for the post, everyone should have the ability to express their individual thoughts and have community input as stated by me and a few others in this and many other posts and conversations. This being the case I would hope that the need to attack individuals or general slander wasn’t a thing, and that it would be a conversation with other individuals providing input and their own take from statements to move the conversation and topic along. I recognize that this isn’t easy to achieve always, but still with any community it is still a thing to strive towards.
I did a little digging as I tend to do, and do see that a lot of the comments that you have taken your time to express have gone, I am not sure but maybe ignored or at least not publicly replied to. I do see that as a shame as a community and more so when you have individuals with monikers like leaders.
Even if not agreed with, offended, difficult, or what ever the case might be, a reply and communication is simple enough to do if the conversation remands civil and within the community guidelines. I do understand that some can believe that a conversation might not have any merit or is a waste of time. But if as a collective you state that you welcome all, it becomes a responsibility to do so. If you carry that ideal and then pick and choose, you are not welcoming all.
As I see it and this is my take, a designated leader (self or otherwise) of a larger community is beholden to help lead, this includes dealing with the not so easy things as well as the things you find welcoming. It isn’t hard to have a statement for something that makes yourself or others uncomfortable in a respectful way that addresses different situations.That said having clear guidelines provided to the community around topics like rumors, slander, or substantiated statements can provide some assistance. I do not know your situation and would say that I did, but will try to explain a little of my own.
While maybe I am not known publicly, in the past I have spent considerable time within the community and in doing so work off of my experiences both in and outside of those situations when providing insight, ideas, thoughts, or even general conversation building. As an possible unknown it was my responsibility to put in the effort before looking to provide additional uneasiness. Even in my case many conversations can be ignored maybe because I am willing to challenge others, discussion of difficult/uncomfortable topics, people not wanting to read or think to deeply about a topic raised by someone else. Whatever the case is, as a community if indeed looking to welcome a global community and growing is an aspired goal it can be done better.
: Embrace different viewpoints, thoughts, and conversations in the community rather than sticking to familiar patterns. Actively support and promote this inclusivity instead of suppressing it.
Accountability for Power
: Prioritize holding influential voices in the community accountable for their actions within governance. Avoid mistaking comfort and complacency for stability and safety.
Reducing Urgency
: Minimize the constant pressure in the governance system. Emphasize preparation, planning, and seeking individuals with organizational expertise and bridge-building skills. Speed should not be prioritized at the expense of quality and meaningful change.
Challenging Poor Management
: Avoid excuses for poor management by focusing on last-minute decisions and rushed processes. Being excellent within a specific team doesn't necessarily make one a great organizational leader or member.
Two-Fold Responsibility
: The proposal process has dual responsibilities. First, the voting community should actively challenge and engage in discussions to make informed decisions. Second, proposers should allocate time and effort to engage in meaningful interactions to facilitate informed determinations.
Time for Governance
: Stress the importance of allowing governance decisions to take time and not rushing them for convenience. Decisions should be made with a deep understanding of their lasting consequences.
Ownership of Responsibility: Governance should not be reduced to a reactive or automated process. Voters must take the responsibility of becoming informed and actively participating in the operation of the organization, as this is fundamental to being a true Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO).
In essence, the author advocates for a more inclusive, accountable, and considered approach to governance, emphasizing the importance of diversity of thought and the careful evaluation of decisions to ensure the success of a DAO.
I didn’t mean for you to DOX your situation, I was just keeping the topic tied to the post and providing to what I would speak on, or pertained to the situation of topics being left unaddressed in the forum for whatever the reasons.
Any other thoughts, concerns, difference of opinions? Is it the opinion that this isn’t a major concern? Is their additional disagreement that the DAO is actually community first?
I know that I have responded to a few individuals that haven’t responded as of yet and might have some return input, @Tyler2 and @Giantkin any additional questions or concerns from the replies provided?
Should we not be worried or discussing this? I know that the focus has been else where, seems to be on ensuring role continuation, or in part in the proximity of being financial solvent but I would offer the “runway” conversation has primarily been focused on role continuation within the DAO.