[Discussion] Are High Fidelity Summaries of Governance Calls Useful? would you vote to fund them?

Hi MakerDAO community, David here :wave:

I want to start a discussion to gauge the community’s feelings and thoughts towards a program we started way back to produce high fidelity summaries of the Thursday Governance and Risk Calls.

The program serves a few purposes:

  • Produces a high-quality high-accuracy resource week-to-week for stakeholders wanting to dig into current events.
  • Creates a historic and referenceable record of these calls for the general public.
  • Great way to onboard new community members, letting them earn Dai while also learning about the Governance of the protocol.

Considerations:

The introduction of Snippets has captured the benefit of providing a quick snapshot of what happens on public calls. The more detailed summaries are now more of an archival resource than one that is used week-to-week.

The introduction of Maker Relay is consistently producing a comprehensive weekly overview of MakerDAO. So the summary is not the only place to get updated. Rather, it’s a place to dig deeper for information and insights.

A Publications Section is being planned on the community development portal to have a better location for meeting summaries, snippets, community-generated content, and more. This would increase the visibility of the high-fidelity summaries.

The Thursday call isn’t the only public call happening at MakerDAO. There are Collateral Onboarding Calls, Special Stakeholder Discussion calls, unscheduled governance calls, and more. We average around 6-10 public calls per month that could use some form of public notes like snippets or summaries.

The cost of a single high-fidelity summary is approximately ~400 Dai and requires three people, approximately ~22k+ per year assuming one summary per week.

The cost of a single snippet is approximately <100 Dai and requires two people.

My Thoughts

Keeping MKR voters and ecosystem stakeholders informed is very important, and is one of the responsibilities of governance. Deciding as a community how that information is captured and shared is important, which is why this issue is being raised here. Especially considering that the protocol will be paying for such services directly in the near future.

I, personally, believe meetings should have snippets at a minimum since they are more cost-effective, a lot easier to produce, require fewer people, and the turn around time is same-day.

High-fidelity summaries are useful, especially for active voters, mandated actors, and domain teams. I think we should continue to produce them for the Thursday GnR call, Emergency Governance Calls, and potentially even Stakeholder Discussion calls since a lot of interesting insights are shared there with no way of reliably being captured except through the notes of individuals who attend the calls or duplicate those insights by writing on the relevant forum threads. My thoughts on this are not set in stone, the community should weigh in to signal whether they would support such an activity in the future through direct funding.

I will update this top-level post with anything I see that might be missing, or important as brought up in the comments.

Questions for you

Polls

Do you use or read the High-Fidelity summaries?
  • yes
  • no
  • abstain

0 voters

Would you vote to fund High Fidelity Summaries? (approx 25k per year)
  • yes
  • no
  • abstain

0 voters

Should we stop producing High-Fidelity Summaries?
  • yes, and my answer for why is in the comments
  • no, and my answer for why is in the comments
  • abstain

0 voters

2 Likes

Is it not possible to use some software to just do speech to text?

Speech to text software is pretty unreliable with Maker stuff since we use a lot of special terms. Between crypto and MakerDAO, we basically have our own lexicon. As a result, software we’ve tested produces a block of text that still needs heavy quality assurance and editing.

We actually used to do this and found that it’s more efficient to do the notes manually in a semi-transcribed way since we still filter out a lot of the noise.

1 Like

personally i think these very useful and would hate for them to disappear.

Calls happen at during us working hours so tons of people likely cannot attend, and watching the call on youtube… well lets just say that it isn’t the most exciting way to spend an hour or two. The high fidelity recaps give an easier to consume format that the youtube recordings imo.

4 Likes

I don’t need them, I would fund them.

Simple reason: inclusion. There are a lot of deaf people, the cost for having this group on board is peanuts - think big, on the long run.

It is a rather small investment to make now for a long term reward

7 Likes

Totally agree (not just because I’m part of the summaries team). It delivers a very easy and intuitive way to walk through all the important points in depth. Let’s say that the snippet provides a quick glance into what’s going on whilst the summary delves deeper if you’re interested. Also, the summary delivers a way to quickly access the specific sections of the video you might be interested in as well as the threads and MIPs mentioned while also delivering a way to document these meetings in a transparent fashion.

1 Like

I don’t read them since i listen to the calls. But if i would have less time, i would use them.
Video is also not searchable and if i want to find something, i just checkout on github and search text files. We should think big and 25k is nothing.

2 Likes

I think these are invaluable to keep the governance process auditable and transparent. Their value will grow over time as the body of documented decisions and discussions steadily grows and remains searchable.

Today it’s already a necessary tool for those who don’t have enough time to attend the governance meetings. Tomorrow when we’re scaled up, there will be no one left with enough time to attend all meetings because there won’t be enough hours in a day to do that.

Researchers will use this as a source for citations, analyses, even forensics.

Inclusiveness is an important additional reason.

Every governance process that takes itself seriously has notes like this, although not always of such high quality. There should be little discussion that this practice needs to be preserved imo.

5 Likes

As I am not the sharpest pencil in the box, I attend the calls and read the High-Fidelity summaries. I find the summaries extremely helpful. I even read the ones in Spanish, and really appreciate the hard work it takes to not only translate, but the dedication that goes into publishing the Maker Relay newsletter and Snippets.

The way I look at it–if you want normal folks like me to understand and dissect the MakerDAO protocol, you’re going to need an Army of brilliant folks to spread the word. And I truly believe MKR holders like A16Z, Paradigm, etc., funded the Maker Foundation to onboard that vision.

So, with that in mind–I voted for producing & keeping ALL the High Fidelity Summaries. :beers:

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 91 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.