Team updates will be replaced with Team discussion slots. Core Units should no longer aim to provide a general update but instead should use this time to present pertinent issues and topics related to their work for the purpose of educating and engaging stakeholders.
The problem is that team updates are a growing segment, proportionally taking up more and more of the call. As additional Core Units come into existence, the current format will not be able to scale.
The main question is whether the Governance and Risk call should be used for general-purpose team updates? We don’t believe it should and here are the main reasons why:
- Written updates are better for this purpose (see below.)
- Information overload; there’s too much and not enough time. We can’t reliably cover everything anyway.
- Information overload; makes the audience’s focus wane, causing engagement and discussion to suffer.
- Information overload; people can’t and don’t try to retain it all anyway.
- Delivering updates in this way is generally inefficient; difficult to reference, search, and retain.
The primary participants of the call are Core Units and working group members. They make up the majority of presentations and communication on the call.
The secondary audience, who don’t communicate as much, is composed of a number of existing stakeholder groups, as well as individuals interested in becoming stakeholders; MKR voters, Dai users, Vault users, collateral partners, auction participants, integrators, MIP authors, and more.
Throughout the life of the call, its primary purpose has shifted a few times. In the beginning, it was to prime the community for decentralized governance. Shortly after, with the introduction of “Domain Teams” and the MIPs Framework, the call moved towards more generalized status updates and discussion turning into somewhat of a “TownHall” meeting with a Governance and Risk emphasis. Since then there seems to be a general confusion about the purpose of the call; Is it to de-silo information between teams? Is it transparency? Is it to provide stakeholders with a venue to engage with MakerDAO teams around issues? Is it to keep DAO teams accountable? In recent times the purpose has become mixed and unclear. Here is a chance for us to reign things in again.
The Governance and Risk call at MakerDAO is a public call and so an aspect of it will always involve stakeholder awareness and transparency, But the primary purpose of the call cannot be so. There’s simply too much to be aware of and transparent about and so it doesn’t scale. We can achieve this through more reliable means. Namely through publications like Maker Relay, Forum at a Glance, the Weekly MIPs Update, and also through specific team updates and reports. All of these can be found on the Forum, and over time we intend to make all this material accessible from multiple points.
We believe the primary purpose of the call is discussion and engagement around pertinent issues, solutions, considerations, and risks in a venue where affected stakeholder types can be a part of the conversation. Do you agree?
- I have another suggestion, check out my comment
Updates can be given in many ways. What is the difference between a presented(and recorded) vs a written(and published) update? Here’s a table.
We appreciate any comments and feedback!
Join us for the Governance and Risk calls!