• General

  • Request for Comment - Implement Leadership Council

Quick note on me. I'm wollemi, one of the initiators of the grants program and have been contributing to incubator since it's inception. I've been contributing to Olympus full time since mid October.

Thanks Tex for pulling this together and to everyone who has been involved in discussions and thinking which has gotten us to this stage of the conversation.

I agree with the points made by @tex @seijaku @FoxMaison @cpt_zeke @Bigbabol @Mark11 @davoice321 @Appleseed @Dropkickdarren . I would like to see Mark11's iteration have enough time for people to consider and discuss before this proposal moves to temperature check.

The main difference in opinion that I have compared to some of the people I have @ mentioned in the previous paragraph is that I don't think this proposal should be split into more than one vote. The mental model that I am using here is that this proposal outlines a new working group. We have governance prior art with the establishment of working groups such as Incubator (OIP-41) and Grants (OIP-55). Each of these working group OIP were proposed with a council with the remit of establishing the working group over a ~3 month period and then reporting back to the community. My suggestion would be that we follow this pattern.

Establishing a Working Group is intense work that takes time and in my opinion many of the points raised in discussion so far require deeper work to answer satisfactorily. From my experience of working with the people nominated they are as excellent candidates to do this foundational work as you will find in the DAO.

I've been working in the crypto sector since 2012 and so have seen many projects attempt the path towards decentralisation. What attracted me to contributing to Olympus was what I perceived, from the outside, via posts such as 'The Gensis DAO' (written by Zeus over a year ago!!), as earnest attempts to decentralize power to the various stakeholders in the community. As Tex outlined in his first comment to his OP the path to decentralisation is prone with execution risk and also takes time (Maker and Synthetix > 2yrs). It has also been my observation over the last 10 years in the space that one path towards decentralisation are temporary centralised formations. This has also been my observation from 20+ years in economic cooperatives. Deploying centralised formations on the path to further decentralisation can seem counter intuitive, but if it is done in service of making processes, roles and accountability more transparent, more measurable so that the systems, processes, roles and accountability can then be further decentralised - then it can be a powerful tool in our toolbox. Or a stepping stone, as Tex puts it. We just need to be careful with the shadow side of deploying centralised formations that they can tend towards consolidations of power that can be difficult to shift. To that end I am really looking forward to Mark11's iterations.

In closing, what we're attempting is hard, but worthwhile. All roads towards decentralisation will have risks, which we'll have to continue to be transparent and honest about - but which we're left with no option but to attempt if we're serious about becoming a Decentralised Reserve Currency.

ChrisS There will be no 100% foolproof way to guarantee trust. People can change over time - they may be 100% committed today but may act in bad faith down the road.

What helps me to determine whether to my fellow Ohmies? It is the daily interaction with them in the stand-ups and work server, how they behave and communicate and through their actions. E.g. @Mark11 voluntary disclosed an ENS gift he received as a token of appreciation from a partner and set-up a process and framework for us to declare. @tex is always asking how this and that is good for Olympus and what utility it brings, consistently over time.

Many of the Council members or proposed Council members are likely high profile contributors in the DAO and I am sure they will need to consistently demonstrate that they have the best interests for Olympus. Otherwise I do not think their names will be put up.

    The DAO just went through a re-org and a set of OKRs were agreed upon.

    This RFC highlights the execution obstacles while the proposed solutions reflect a practical approach given time constraints to meet the OKRs. DKD's background provided invaluable insights on how these came about.

    My takeaway is that the need to fix is urgent and I would vote yes.

    Reasons:

    1. A one year tenure is short and there is a safeguard with an evaluation in 6 months' time
    2. There is clear responsibility and accountability tied to each member that is aligned to the agreed OKRs
    3. All the proposed members have proven to be able to execute

    Balancing and incorporating the forum's feedback thus far, I propose to incorporate the following when moving to OIP:

    Add two more Council members (as a tactical approach):

    • Marketing & Communication - raised by many, common theme as the weakest link thus far
    • Community Representative - for rank and file voice to be heard and be counted (h/t @davoice321)

    Parallelly, start working on a framework for the Council members. Lots of good points have already been raised. This will take time and should not be a blocker for this proposal to go ahead to address the immediate pains/ obstacles.

    We should be vigilant in:

    1. how to avoid/ minimize the process from becoming a popularity contest, jockeying for power...
    2. balance between democracy vs. ensuring the right people are place in the right role
    3. how that democracy is achieved - community-wide vote, by number of token holders, trust in a select group of people to decide

    I know the DAO has enough talent and Ohmies who care enough to ensure these and to make it happen. Happy Anniversary!

    tex agreed on the healthy discussion, so I pushed the poll end date to Friday for now. The goal is to get this proposal through Snapshot by EOM, so may be best to move RFC to OIP on Saturday, proposal section live through the weekend, then run Snapshot 3/28-3/31. Thoughts?

    Sounds good 👍 I agree on the urgency aspect as well.

      Hello @tex, thank you for detailing this RFC and it was a joy to read. A quick shoutout to @Dropkickdarren for plugging this RFC in various channels to recruit more comments.

      After reading the RFC, here are my comments:

      1. Council vs Stratego vote: While it's clear that the council will decide the 'what' and Strategos will carry out the 'how,' I want to know if there are any systems in place where the two parties end in a deadlock: Council says yes, Stratego says no. I think such a procedure should be included in the proposal, just like Zeus's role has been indicated as a tie-breaker in council decisions.
      2. 6-month check: It felt off to me that the judgement of the success of a team comprised of council members is being delegated to council members and strategos. I believe that DAO contributors at large (175-200 of them as per the Data Studio) should be the adjudicators.
      3. Election process: While I understand that one of the aims of the working group is to:

      tex Specify a process by which future Council members can be selected directly by the DAO community.

      I would feel better if this responsibility was delegated to one council member at least, in explicit fashion. If this fails to happen, I would not like to see a deferral of responsibility.

      Other suggestions to improve contributor experience

      From a contributor's perspective, here are some of the end-results I would love to see. I hope this helps the council decide upon the 'what' and the strategos in preemptively figuring out the 'how':

      1. Timely comp rollout: Nothing like knowing that comp has arrived within the first 1-3 days of the month
      2. Cross-chain comp rollout: gOHM has gone cross-chain and I see little reason to not strive towards comp going cross-chain as well.
      3. Inclusion in exploration: It's something I have seen happen in various departments. It's announced that an idea is being explored but then the communication doesn't go beyond that for the contributor. The contributor is informed about the final decision and is expected to help in its implementation. I would say that if the council and strategos start to explore a topic, it should be mandatory for the strategy to keep their team in the loop and represent their voice if the working group wishes to be heard over a particular matter.
      4. Crashable meetings: I think that besides meetings and channels where secrecy is mandatory, channels shouldn't be as gated as they are currently in the DAO. Our departments feel very isolated and I would love to see contributors sometimes hopping into meetings. I am happy to say that our contributors are wise enough to not chime in unnecessarily when something doesn't concern them or they don't know enough about it, but simply being able to read other people's messages and hear their thought process really makes one feel like they're a part of something larger than their department.

      I might add more points here if I recall something. Thank you for your patience!

        Let me start by saying that I support the temporary need for a Council out of necessity. At times, Olympus feels like we're trying to steer the Titanic when we need to be a speedboat. More importantly, we need to be a speedboat that agrees on where we're going and how we're getting there. The disconnect between Core, Strategos, and the DAO that @tex mentioned hinders us from doing this in many ways.

        I'm also generally supportive of the new members of the Council but agree with @nach211 that we absolutely need Marketing/Communications representation. We build some amazing products at a blistering pace, but our ability to promote, educate, and inform the Community on why these products are important, how to use them, and what they mean for Olympus at-large is lacking.

        **Other feedback:
        **
        1. I do not think this OIP should be split into two separate OIPs. I personally don't think it's going to change the outcome (both a Council being established and the people on it), and the benefits we get by quickly streamlining coordination via a Council outweighs the risk we get something slightly wrong in this OIP. As @indigo said, this isn't set in stone. We'll continue to iterate, and more importantly, we're working towards on chain governance where a Council won't be needed.

        2. Any good business focuses on people, product, and process. This OIP almost entirely focuses on process.

        I think the Council should also be responsible for delivering a product roadmap (at least at a confidential / high-level manner as to not leak alfa) based on these OKRs. If that's Olympus12 still, then great. Declare as such. But if revisions or new strategies need to be introduced based on these OKRs, then we should define them, plan around them, execute on them, and be accountable for them.

        I also think the council should be responsible for delivering a people plan. We have some REALLY talented people contributing to the DAO who would have no problem finding other opportunities. I'd like to see these people be incentivized to contribute long term a) to retain them (and their institutional knowledge for continuity), and b) so they are attached to the upside in the value they create. I know @twoeggs @hOHMwardbound @Stefano and many others worked hard on a comp plan, but it ultimately didn't get implemented. I'd like to see this topic brought back up as part of the Council's responsibility. The 'people' plan should also include soft benefits (e.g. time off, etc.). Ultimately, the goal imo is to make Olympus a no-brainer for why someone would want to contribute, and stay a contributor, to the DAO.

        3. I agree that a rolling renewal of Council Members is a good idea. I think we need to give this group 6 months to get oriented, devise a plan, and execute. I'm confident this highly talented group of individuals are capable of doing so in that timeframe, but if they can't then we either need to rethink the Council's validity (as a concept in general) or whether we have the right people on the Council. After 6 months, a rolling schedule makes sense.

          This is a nice step in defining how direction is decided on and what work gets done. I'll mention the following insights:

          1. We need better definition of budgeting and who controls that

            What I mean is, it's pretty unclear who controls funds for contributors and/or projects. If we have a council that will control that, I'd like to see specifics on how budgeting works. Should release of budget require votes from multiple parties? ie: council plus community? Maybe for larger amounts?

          2. Power Check

            The council is too powerful and while a year limit would help, I think we might want to have some type of community vetoing power. Let's say if 80% of the community disagree's on something the council does, they are able to withhold budget or stop the proposal. Creating a council is consolidating power for more efficient decisions to be made, which is good, but we'll want to make sure that the community will still have a way to keep bad actors in check.

          3. Voting

            I'd be in favor of the addition of some type of liquid democracy system to allow early dismissal of members.

          4. Edge Cases

            There are a few things that we should consider and be specific on how power transitions.

            • Early leave ie: paternity, deciding to move roles to a different DAO or company

            • Death of one or more council members (not nice to think about but should be considered)

            • Bad actor. Someone goes rouge trying to take down Olympus or leaking information. How will that be dealt with.

          Overall, since this is a baby step and we area already putting a ton of trust in these members digital hands, I'll be voting yes since I've already trusted these members so far and they tend to deliver. As time goes on, I'd like see more definition around what the council can and cannot do.

          I'll end with this. A single, powerful leader with great vision will lead the community and Olympus to greatness but the same applies for the opposite. We are a protocol which means the longevity of the system depends on how well we define the checks and balances the protocol has in place. I'd like to see additional proposals at some point that add this.

          LFG!

          tex Tex et all. I think there is a healthy discussion on this forum. This is an important step forward, where I still don't find the reason to rush it. I would not send this to snapshot till we have have passed a formal revision from legal. I do think there is a sense of urgency, but we started a process back in Nov and Dec in terms of
          - Defining vision / mission -> Olympus 12.
          - Road map/Projects -> Projects and priorities.
          - OKRs, Goals, Resource Planning. -> Okrs.
          - DAO structure , happening now.

          So from Sep to Oct I do see a big progress that the DAO as a group has been able to achieve, and rushing this important step might me counterproductive for all the work done by everybody these past 4 months.

          In this phase that we are starting, I see the need to stick to the plan, in terms of OKRs. Redefine where needed the resource allocations, team size and adjust goals where needed.

          It is within this spirit that my recommendation is not to rush things. Thoughts?


            lipman These are all very valid points. Thank you. Specially on the talented people involved in the DAO.
            With respect to the Olympus12, that's the source from where the Projects and OKRs are created from.
            We did define when working on Olympus 12, that quarterly revisions for those definitions might be needed to reinforce or change if needed with a mandatory Olympus 2023 to be published December 15, 2022.

            So from my perspective, we have a strategic plan, we have road map and we have OKRs for Q1 and some for Q2 and DAO Wide OKRs. Planning process is almost done, now we need execute, measure results, adjust, repeat.

            All in all, I think the DAO is doing a fantastic work co-creating this framework. From Strategos coming with the council idea, to Mark proposing a rule document, to tex posting this RFC.

            Whats next I believe is incorporating all these comments, + legal framework to keep moving forward.

              I'm unsure if we know who we are as a community. We build fast, we move even faster but who are we doing it for? It's not clear if it's a priority of the council to answer this question? or if we have the personnel to do so?

              tex This unified leadership team is both accountable and has the authority to make strategic decisions on behalf of the DAO in service of the community.

              If they don't know who we are as users, members, ohmies then it's not clear how much of a "service" these decisions will be for the community. How can we ensure the success of the council if my assumption is correct?

              The fact that there will now be a "we" and a "they" is also telling. Will there a be void between the two?

                tex Just a quick update in terms of timeline. The proposed framework is being run through a legal review, which will help clarify a lot of questions regarding scope and powers of the Council. This will be important to view it as more of a steering council for coordinating working groups. Also having some threshold established for checks and balances

                  10 days later
                  Write a Reply...