Disclaimer: Rich is doing a good job. I am happy, as everybody else, to see it formalised in some way in the DAO. This is post about the methodology, not about specific people.
inspired by the excellent post of LongForWisdom I also decided to express my concerns about the recent governance topic: about the Facilitator role and the first interim facilitator, Rich Brown.
First of all, as already pointed out by LongForWisdom, there are multiple questions in this governance topic. I guess more or less everybody would agree that a facilitator role is necessary, or at least useful, or at least not negative. So (I expect) most people would not oppose the activation of such role. So one of the questions is probably universally accepted, but the others need more discussion.
1) I find it weird that the first role that is voted on in the MakerDAO is that of the facilitator. While important this does not seem the MOST important and the first that should be voted on. I mean, the MakerDAO will require a lot of roles (aka “jobs”) when it’s up and running and independent of the Foundation. Examples:
- Head of Oracles?
- Head of Communications?
- Head of Development?
- Head of Risk Analysis?
- Head of Web Services
- Head of Client Support (?)
Not to mention that, when the DAO becomes very big, we will likely have:
- Head of Communications > International
- Head of Communications > USA
- Head of Communications > Europe
- and so on.
- Head of Communications > USA > California
- Head of Communications > Europe > Germany
and so on…
2) So why start with a job such as the “community facilitator”? Why not try to organise the big picture first, and agree on its structure? Natural questions to be discussed:
- How many jobs do we want to vote on at the level of the governance (I.e., on-chain)?
I mean, probably we don’t want to vote for each sigle little job (e.g., translator of a couple of documents). We just want to vote on big roles (e.g., Head of translations) which will then deal with a lot of other people “under them” off-chain.
- How do we plant to recruit people? This time Rich Brown was the only proposed name. I think this is a very bad practice, even if we are still at the very beginning, We should definitely try to have a “transparent application process” with people sending their CV, and other data, e.g., specifying a minimal salary they want.
What if in the MakerDAO chat we currently have, using an anonymous nickname, the head of communication of Harvard University? And what if (S)He was willing to do the “Facilitator Job” for 24 months for free? (very hypothetical, but still…) Would we still vote for Rich Browns? Maybe yes, maybe not.
In this light, who is going inside the MakerDAO to evaluate the CVs? Who is going to shortlist the applicants?
similarly, what is going to be the procedure to determine the salaries? Are we expected to vote for each salary, of each job? This obviously does not scale. So we need to discuss a hierarchical structure and delegate decisions. This will work only high levels of transparency which, fortunately, should be possible with blockchain.
It seems to me that this structure is what should be designed/discussed/voted-on at the beginning. Not the “facilitator” job + Rich Brown as interim.
3) One could say “OK, but we need to start with somewhere with something…”.
I totally agree. But if we have to do this, let’s do this well, with some conceptual organisation. Let’s do this in an organised manner! Not just by voting on a random role, that is anyway already being well done (and paid for by the Foundation) by Rich Brown.
The facilitator Job, as described by Rich himself during the last call, is supposed to create a discussion link between the community (Reddit, Chat, Forum, other) and the Foundation. Good. This is useful (especially since Rune, Steve etc have not participated to the calls for a long while). But this link can potentially be informal.
Before formalising this job, I’d very much rather discuss and vote on the general “job hierarchy and structure” of the MakerDAO (independent from the Foundation!).
TLDR: in line with my previous post () I feel this vote is again one instance of “let’s play the DAO for a while with some pseudo-random stuff, and buy time”. OK, I want to play. But I’s like to play it properly!