If the Maker community is going to function properly as an distributed organisation we need to have some form of internal transparency and reporting with regards to the activity of Core Units.
As long as the Foundation was in charge the information flow ended up there, but with the transition to the Community things will have to be done differently. Core Units that have both their mandate and their budget approved by the Community will also have to report status and have some form of transparency of activities. Otherwise the community has no way of checking if the Core Unit is doing anything useful, if they are successful in achieving goals or if they have problems they need help to overcome.
Let me be specific
The last couple of weeks has seen some proposed Core Units with some apparent overlap between mandates. A post was made pointing this out. Do note my slightly unfair tactic - in the chart I am comparing already existing groups like GRO and MARCOMMS with proposed Core Units. This touches off some defensive response providing information. The method is continued in replies to the post about the Marcomms Core Unit. @Sebventures then really uses the hammer. The people in GRO are now so provoked they will simply have to respond and @MarianoDP’s excellent reply provides more insight into the as-is situation at GRO than I have ever heard in all my involvement with Maker starting in 2016.
The community now knows several things that were not known until last week
- GRO has identified the need for a fiat on/off ramp as extremely important but solving this has yet to begin.
- MARCOMMS will not consider the use of emotional arguments in their marketing, prefering education.
- Marketing of MKR is not on the mandate for any group, marketing of DAI is shared by at least four existing and proposed groups. This type of information is highly valueable for the discussion around MKR minting.
All of the above is excellent and relevant information, the only problem is that it was extracted through emotional provocation. This is highly suboptimal, creating lots of stress, but plainly necessary when the groups in question will not provide the community with a real-talk version of their activites.
How about we evolve?
We need some system for reporting and a certain level of transparency from Core Units to the Community. The Smart Contract team has a chart for Liq2.0 implementation displayed at meetings. @mrabino1 has a state of business thread updated every month at least. These are examples that can be built upon. Possibly signal requests could be used for this? Or the Core Unit could be totally open to questions from GOV001 which then could choose what to tell the community?
I hope other community members pick up on this - we need something here. Feedback appreciated and as always please point out my mistakes.