Right, so Governance Facilitator.
My first impressions of this when Rich suggested it were ‘your job is horrible, why would I want to do it?’ That said, there are some fairly compelling reasons why I feel like I should do it.
- It’s a concrete step towards decentralization of the DAO.
- Rich is overworked, and is often not able to give the role his full attention (though to be fair, he does a great job of balancing it with his other responsibilities.) Having a second facilitator should help to increase coverage.
- At this stage, there don’t appear to be viable alternative candidates (this is not meant to throw shade on anyone/everyone, if you disagree, please make yourself known)
The plan has always been to have multiple facilitators sharing the work and representing different geographic groups. My hope is that we can get there as quickly as possible, but ultimately someone has to be first.
So, with all this in mind, I’d be willing to take the role, if you’ll all have me. Once we have other Facilitators in place, I may re-evaluate and either decide to step down or aim to move into a different role.
If I am to join Rich as a new Governance Facilitator though, there are several issues that need to be addressed. I’ll speak to these below.
The Mandate was written a good while ago. While there are many points in it that are very relevant, it’s a long document that has aged somewhat. Before a ratification vote takes place, I want to take the change to clean up that document and present a more compact list of roles, responsibilities and selection criteria. My hope is to add this to MIP0 before MIPs are ratified to match the MIP Editor Role that is defined in that document.
Having the role and responsibilities as part of MIP0 would also allow me to be onboarded using the onboarding subproposals in MIP0, which I think is important in terms of giving the MIPs and the ratification legitimacy.
Are the Governance Facilitators supposed to be impartial on governance issues? I enjoy weighing in on the issues we are all facing. As a Governance Facilitator, will I be required to keep those views to myself? Naturally I'll attempt to approach and treat both sides of an issue as objectively as possible, but is sharing my view and voting in public forum polls appropriate?
I can't commit to working full-time hours. Luckily, I don't think that the Facilitator Role necessarily requires that many hours, but I want this to be made clear upfront.
What do you all think a Governance Facilitator should be paid? Should they be paid hourly, or a fixed rate per month? At some point (not initially) this money is going to come out of the protocol, so I think it makes sense to look for input at this stage. My plan is to try to replicate whatever the consensus is with Rich through the grants program, though of course the final decision will lie with him.
Conflicts of Interest and Centralisation of Power
Conflicts of interest is perhaps too strong of a title for what I’m describing, but I do a number of other things in the community that are appropriate for a community member to do but may not be appropriate for a Governance Facilitator to do.
Here’s a list of everything I’m currently doing, along with my judgement of whether it’s potentially problematic given centralisation of power and conflict of interest concerns. Please comment if you have strong feelings around these. I can go with my gut on each issue, but I’d love as much input as possible from the community.
Product Managing the mkrgov.science dashboard
This is probably okay, but could become problematic in the future. I have input into the scoping and choice of work done. My intention is to use that input to improve the metrics available to the community however that input could be used maliciously to stall or push metrics according to an agenda. Thus far there are no competing dashboards that show similar governance metrics.
Collateral Onboarding Group
I took a leading role in the development of the Collateral Onboarding Document. This work has mostly finished now, and the group is having ongoing discussions as to whether it should dissolve or if it’s mandate should change to suggesting and pushing collateral types for onboarding. If the group does move in that direction, it may be better that I leave the group.
I don’t think there is a large problem here. I think this is intended to be covered by the Governance Facilitator role. Includes very light moderation, managing tags, providing navigation aids and generally working to make everything as easy to navigate as possible.
Governance At A Glance
I write Governance At A Glance every week, and I go through it on the Governance and Risk calls. Previously I would have felt this was a risk, however considering that @adrianhacker-pdx is now producing Dai-gest, there is an uncorrelated alternative source of weekly summary. Given that an alternative exists, I would be comfortable continuing Governance at a Glance.
Ironically there may now be less of a conflict of interest here. I strongly expect that if we end up adopting SourceCred for the long-term that ‘official’ domain role will be excluded from payment through SourceCred to prevent double-dipping. In the short-term I already planned to exclude myself from the trial, so no change there.
The Governance Facilitators should probably be prevented from acting as the author on MIPs due to their role in the governance and ratification process for those MIPs. I do not expect this to be an issue as my direct work on MIPs will end before I am ratified as Governance Faciliator.
I’ve written / helped collate a number of governance documents that currently live on the Comm-dev portal. Given that Rich already moderates what can and can’t appear on the comm-dev portal, I don’t believe that there are any additional conflict of interest or centralisation concerns here.
Community Communications Group
I’m currently semi-involved in the community communications group under the title ‘governance liaison.’ The group is new, and this role hasn’t been decided or fully specified yet. However, as the comms group is the initial form of what we hope to one day be a full domain team, it may be inappropriate for the Governance Facilitator to also be a part of that team, even in a liaison capacity.
I think that covers most of my questions, concerns and thoughts. I know there is a lot going on at the moment, and these issues don’t all need to be resolved immediately, but please keep them in mind in the future.