RRC-27: Trial run a Governance Working Group

[jengajojo]

Abstract

This proposal advocates for the establishment of a 3 month trial of a Governance Working Group (GWG) within RARI DAO with the main goal of increasing the execution power of the DAO. The GWG will play a crucial role in moderating discourse, resolving disputes, maintain tooling and documentation and ultimately a training and testing ground for delegate led governance

Motivation

Governance today is primarily funded by the RARI foundations operational budget and facilitated through service providers & a community lead. While this approach offers a decent starting ground, the ideal state for the governance of the DAO is when it’s run by it’s delegates and funded directly by the DAO. In order to reach this state, the DAO should experiment by giving an increasing amount of responsibilities to delegates over time, test results and iterate. The WG framework offers a great playground to test such initiatives and ultimately plan and deploy a progressive decentralisation strategy.

Rationale

The formation of the GWG is rooted in the acknowledgment of the dynamic nature of decentralized governance & the imperative to adapt and evolve accordingly. By consolidating expertise and dedicating resources to governance-related tasks, RARI DAO can mitigate risks, optimise resource allocation & enhance overall community participation. The GWG will serve as a catalyst for positive change, driving innovation, efficiency & inclusivity in the governance processes of RARI DAO.

Specification

Goals

1. Governance Participation

• Propose and implement updates, incentives & metrics-based strategies to maintain and grow active governance participants
• Identify methods to increase high-quality participation in RARI DAO governance, and provide recommendations for fine-tuning governance processes toward efficacy & inclusivity

2. Governance Operations

• Develop, maintain, and regularly update governance onboarding process to facilitate the seamless integration of new members into the DAO.
• Maintain, research & upgrade governance tooling to facilitate smooth governance operations

3. Governance Documentation

• Establish, monitor, and enforce governance documentation, and explore developing a constitution, bylaws, and a code of conduct.
• Continuously update governance documentation to reflect evolving community needs and best practices.

4. Moderation & Dispute Resolution

• Proactively moderate discourse to filter out offensive, poorly defined, or spammy proposals.
• Serve as mediators to assist in resolving disputes and conflicts within the community.

Timeline

During the course of the trial period, tasks will be progressively allocated to delegates incharge of operations from the foundation to the DAO. A final report on the feasibility of this approach will be written and published at the end of the trial period

KPIs

• of active delegates participating in high quality & in depth discussions
• improvement in quality and depth of discussions
• number of new delegates successfully onboarded
• adherence to established governance documentation and protocols.

MoS

Positive feedback from foundation & delegates about DAO led Governance operations

Multi-sig policies

• Assuming a 4 member squad, the multi-sig will be structured as 3 out of 4
• 50% compensation will be paid after 2 months
• 50% compensation will be paid upon submission of a report to the DAO at the end of the trial period
• Any leftover funds will be distributed between members
• Multi-sig address: 0x2a39B257d4D62e212a1b6CdB07e54661293b04F2

Roles & responsibilities of each member

Steward/Operations Lead: @jengajojo

Oversees the group, coordinates tasks, leads allocation and execution of operations and ensures milestones are met

Advisor: StableLab/@Matt_Stablelab

Appointed by the foundation as advises on all things governance

Foundation Operator: @addie

Appointed by the foundation to lead & deliver parts of governance operations

Scribe & Ops Co-lead: @winverse

Prepares detailed documentation and assists in governance operations whenever needed

Budget

Role	Quantity	Compensation (RARI)
Steward & Ops Lead	1	3000
Advisor	1	1000
Foundation representative	1	0
Scribe & Ops Co-lead	1	3000
Buffer		1000
Total		8000

[bitblondy]

Thanks for the proposal. These are defintely some important goals.

Could you elaborate a little bit, what the outcome / the deliverables of the working group should be?
Most of the tasks seem to be ongoing / operations related, so not sure whether a working group is the right instrument for that (and just for three months…).

[jengajojo]

Thanks for the feedback @bitblondy

In line with the progressive decentralisation of the RARI ecosystem, the primary goal is to demonstrate that governance can be stewarded by a decentralized body as opposed to a foundation led team. The foundation budget renews next year and by then if we are able to run one or two iterations of this WG, then we’d have sufficient feedback to decide if this work can be delegated full-time to the DAO

[coffee-crusher]

Thanks for that additional context and future intent regarding the purpose of this WG to validate if full governance can be operated by the DAO. I like the structure and KPIs of this proposal.

Will the WG also determine the best way to measure your KPIs, such as, how to determine the % of active delegates participation in addition to also measuring these results? (i.e. identify the best tools/processes to measure, as well as measure the results)

[jengajojo]

Thank you for the support! We are open to feedback on how the results should be evaluated

@coffee-crusher

identify the best tools/processes to measure, as well as measure the results

Depends on the tools being used, since we don’t have a huge budget many of the popular tools for this have a significant cost associated with their implementation, hence the WG will have to go through the governance process in order to finalize on the tooling.

[Sixty]

Hey @jengajojo, a group dedicated to governance is always great to have in any DAO. However, I had a few questions, namely:

1. How will the improvement in the quality and depth of discussions be objectively measured?
2. What specific documentation will be established initially, and how will the GWG ensure adherence to these documents?

[jengajojo]

Thanks for the feedback @Sixty

@Sixty

• How will the improvement in the quality and depth of discussions be objectively measured?

Here are my suggestion on how to measure the quality of discussions

Objective Measures:

Participation Metrics
Number of participants, frequency of participation, & the diversity of participants (e.g., newcomers vs. experienced members).

Proposal Quality Analysis (Analyze the proposals submitted before & after the establishment of the GWG, evaluating their complexity, clarity, & completeness)

• Average length of proposals, number of proposals passing initial review, and number of revisions required.

Engagement Metrics
Number of posts and comments, average length of discussions, and the number of unique contributors.

Resolution Time (time taken to resolve governance issues or disputes)
Average resolution time, number of unresolved issues, & the number of escalations.

Subjective Measures:

Advisor Review: We can consult our advisors as experienced governance experts to periodically review & assess the quality of discussions.

• Metrics: Expert ratings on discussion quality, depth, and relevance.

Qualitative Feedback: Collect detailed qualitative feedback from key stakeholders, including foundation members and active delegates, about their perceptions of the improvement in discussions.

• Metrics: Thematic analysis of feedback, frequency of positive vs. negative comments

@Sixty

What specific documentation will be established initially, and how will the GWG ensure adherence to these documents?

1. Governance Onboarding Manual: A comprehensive guide detailing the governance processes, roles, and responsibilities within RARI DAO. Contents include Introduction to governance, step-by-step onboarding process, key governance tools, and resources.

2. DAO Constitution: A foundational document outlining the principles, values, and core governance structure of RARI DAO. The document includes Vision and mission, fundamental principles, governance framework, and decision-making processes.

3. Governance Handbook: Detailed rules and regulations that govern the day-to-day operations of RARI DAO such as procedures for proposal submission, voting protocols, conflict resolution mechanisms, and amendment processes as well as standard operating procedures for governance-related tasks and responsibilities such as meeting schedules, documentation standards, communication channels, and task allocation processes.

4. Code of Conduct: A set of guidelines for acceptable behavior and communication within the DAO.

While some of these documents may already exist, the WG will start updating these. For the ones which do not exist yet, we will suggest these to the DAO. Not all documents listed here will be delivered in the trial run.

How can we ensure adherence?

• conduct regular training sessions & workshops to educate members about the governance documentation.

• Implement mechanisms to enforce adherence to the documentation and hold members accountable for violations. Eg: Actions such as Warnings, temporary bans, and potential removal from governance roles for repeated non-compliance will help in enforcement

Generally, social contracts are enforced by peer pressure as opposed to legal or smart contracts. So it is also a responsibility of the DAO to help with enforcing these social contracts.

As stated before the WG however is free to deviate from these suggestions on documentation and compliance based on their judgement & bandwidth.

[Sixty]

Thanks for the in-depth response, @jengajojo; this is overall a well-thought-out proposal with clear and measurable objectives. One of my favorite parts of being in web3 is seeing progressive decentralization efforts like this empower DAO contributors to take on more and more responsibilities.

I noticed @bitblondy mentioned some of the tasks are ongoing, and it would be great to understand what those tasks are and how they will be handed over to the Governance Working Group over time. This way, the DAO can observe if there are any improvements in these tasks and processes to assess the efficacy of this working group.

[jengajojo]

Thanks for the kind words @Sixty Since there is not official public documentation on these tasks I do not have a clear picture on specifically which ongoing tasks @bitblondy is talking about. My best guess is that work done by @addie is included here.

[bitblondy]

Thanks for the explanations and detailed implementations @jengajojo, the KPIs and documentation could be really helpful.

With the ongoing tasks mentioned, I was referring to some of the goals mentioned in the proposal, mainly “2. Governance Operations” and “4. Moderation & Dispute Resolution”. Was just confused in how far that’s the task of the working group.

[addie]

As mentioned in the proposal review call earlier this week, the Foundation wanted to share our existing resources to give everyone an idea of what’s available:

1. Governance Onboarding Manual: MVP can be found here: RARI DAO Resources
2. DAO Constitution: can be found in the RARI DAO Knowledge Base “DAO Constitution” section, with a direct link on the RARI DAO Resources page
3. Governance Handbook: can be found in the RARI DAO Knowledge Base “Governance>Governance flow & processes” section with a direct link on the RARI DAO Resources page
4. Code of Conduct: Community Guidelines are outlined in the discord server channel “│server-rules”. Would this be a specific Code of Conduct for active DAO members that participate in community calls and engage in governance channels (telegram, forum, tally), beyond basic engagement in the discord server?
   1. Community Guidelines
      1. This server is the home of the Rarible Foundation, RARI Chain, and Rarible protocol. All inquiries regarding Rarible.com (i.e. verifications, support, etc.) will be ignored and may result in a ban.
      2. Treat everyone with respect. This server is dedicated to fostering a space for constructive dialogue where every member is expected to engage with each other professionally. Disrespectful dialogue may result in a ban. Absolutely no harassment, sexism, racism, or hate speech will be tolerated.
      3. English only. We are unable to moderate other languages.
      4. No spamming or excessive posting for commercial interests. Any shill posts / links will be removed and may result in a ban.
      5. No unsolicited spam or self-promotion to members through DMs (such as links to other Discord servers or automated messages.)
      6. Never share personal information such as passwords, seed phrase, or sensitive information which would compromise your privacy and safety.
5. Bylaws: can be found in the RARI DAO Knowledge Base “Foundation” section. Note some updates are already pending.

Questions

1. What will be the consensus mechanism included in the proposal for the DAO to align on updates to the existing Foundation docs, or to publish new ones?
2. How do you envision the general flow to update existing Foundation documents?
   1. The GWG outlines the updates they would like to make, presents to the rest of the DAO for feedback and alignment, then a Foundation representative completes the update?
   2. Or the GWG outlines the updates they would like to make, then a Foundation representative completes the update, then updates are presented to the rest of the DAO?

[jengajojo]

Thanks for the update @addie

The DAO Constitution created during RRC-0 is a great start. Since the DAO recently approved a framework for creating working groups, this should be updated in the DAO’s docs. As the DAO evolves, it’s a good idea to refresh this document from time to time so that it is in sync with the latest consensus at the DAO. This is exactly where the GWG can step in an periodically review these documents and keep them up to date.

It should be noted that the scope of all documents in question will be limited to the DAO and will not extend to the foundation(eg: foundation bylaws).

@addie

Would this be a specific Code of Conduct for active DAO members that participate in community calls and engage in governance channels (telegram, forum, tally), beyond basic engagement in the discord server?

Yes, we will suggest a code of conduct specifically for delegates to engage with governance.

@addie

What will be the consensus mechanism included in the proposal for the DAO to align on updates to the existing Foundation docs, or to publish new ones?

My understanding of the constitution of any org is that: it’s a fundamental set of principles or established precedents that govern an organization. It often outlines the structure, functions, and powers of the various entities within the organization and often embody the core values and principles upon which the entity is founded and serve as the supreme law of that organization. Such important documents should follow the existing consensus processes in the DAO.

A governance handbook/manual, on the other hand, is more practical and operational in nature.It provides detailed guidelines, procedures, and best practices for governing the organization effectively. Unlike a constitution, a governance manual is typically more flexible and subject to periodic updates and revisions. It may cover a wide range of topics including decision-making processes, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, codes of conduct, financial management protocols, and risk management strategies. The document serves as a manual or reference guide for those involved in the day-to-day operations and decision-making processes of the organization. Hence, my suggestion is that the authority to update this document should be delegated to the GWG.

@addie

How do you envision the general flow to update existing Foundation documents?

I’d suggest the first approach for Constutional updates and the latter for operational docs such as the handbook.

[cr1st0f]

I intend to vote against this proposal.

Although I fully support the creation of a Governance Working Group and feel this is an important function for the DAO in its early stages, I cannot in good conscience vote in favour of the current proposal for the following reasons:

1. KPIs are not objectively measurable, for example: “High quality and in-depth discussions”, “Improvement in quality and depth of discussions”.
2. Lack of clarity around deliverables. In the discussion above some of the proposed deliverables appear to have already been created by the Foundation leaving me unsure of what deliverables are proposed. Furthermore these deliverables are not clearly listed in the proposal itself despite the proposal being put onchain after this forum discussion has taken place.
3. It is unclear who will actually do the work. From the description of the roles and responsibilities I am unsure who is responsible for which of the deliverables and meeting the KPIs. It would be good to have clearer language around responsibilities.
4. Leftover funds being distributed to members. This appears to be a pay rise without explicitly specifying it as such. I cannot see any reason to request budget surplus for a working group which appears to have no costs outside of labour/contractor hours, I also cannot see any reason why this would not be returned to treasury. Distributing this pro-rata to the Foundation member of the WG may raise further concerns for the DAO, which is what the proposal appears to specify.

Generally I think all of my feedback is getting at this proposal feeling immature and not concretely specified which makes it hard for tokenholders to make informed decisions around the necessity, cost-benefit, and outcomes of this working group. I believe another iteration would help define things more clearly.

I would also suggest that proposals coming from a Governance Working Group should be of exceptional quality given their role in upholding and judging the quality of other proposals. The current iteration of this proposal falls short of what should be expected in my opinion.

Whether this proposal fails or passes I hope to see the proposers work on clarifying objectives and KPIs in future iterations and for there to be a culture of governance in Rari DAO being held to high standards.

[dzonson.eth]

Standing behind this.

[Jose_StableLab]

Thank you for bringing forward this thoughtful proposal for a Governance Working Group (GWG) within RARI DAO. StableLab supports this initiative as it aligns with our mission of fostering effective and decentralized governance. However, as StableLab would be a paid member within the GWG we voted Abstain to let the Rari community decide.

The formation of the GWG is a crucial step towards transitioning governance operations from being foundation-led to being DAO-driven. As we have seen recently with the Compound case, decentralized decision-making can have unforeseen risks, and establishing a solid active participation and resilient governance frameworks is key to minimize these risks.

Regarding the proposal, we also agree that KPIs have to be clear in measuring the progress that the GWG is making, this will be one of our focus points in the first GWG round. We consider the milestone-based reward approach to be very appropriate, as we have seen it in multiple DAOs, enhancing completion of the set goal and minimizing cost-risks for the DAO upon unfinished work. We look forward to contributing to this effort and collaborating with the other members of the working group to establish a solid governance framework to make Rari DAO sustainable in the long run.

[lionmsee]

I believe creating a Governance Working Group is important in enhancing governance quality and participation in Rari DAO.

The trial run could be an opportunity to address and build upon the concerns raised by fellow community members regarding clarity of KPIs, deliverables, resource allocation; provided there are open communication channels with the community to iterate and improve operations of the GWG.

With this in mind, I’ll vote for.

[bitblondy]

As previously stated out, I agree with @cr1st0f’s concerns about the KPIs, deliverables and leftover funds. Generally, Governance is a very broad topic, and it’s not an easy task to grasp specific measurements.

Though, I believe It would be beneficial to optimize the proposal a little bit, also in regard to the already existing resources @addie pointed out.

However, I guess we all agree that a governance working group is in general a very meaningful initiative, and I look forward to how it turns out.

[jengajojo]

Thank you for the feedback @cr1st0f. Since we have not received your suggestions on what exactly we need to modify, we are proceeding with the existing version of the proposal. But be rest assured that we will work on the points that you have highlighted in the working group and provide an update as soon as possible.

[cr1st0f]

Further to my previous comments and off-forum discussion with @jengajojo here are some high-level suggestions for modifications to the proposal which I’d be happy to vote in favour of:

• Table of deliverables which will be completed by the end of the working group funding period. Some deliverables have been discussed in this thread however many seem to already exist and so some clarity around what exactly will be worked on and what the output of the work will be is needed.
• KPIs by which the success of the working group can be objectively determined. A common framework for creating KPIs is that they should be S.M.A.R.T: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound.
• Remove the part of the proposal where leftover funds will be split between contributors of this working group, instead return unspent funds to the treasury.

[jengajojo]

Based on the latest round of feedback, here is the most updated version of the proposal.

Summary of revisions:

• Leftover funds cannot be automatically claimed, but the squad needs to deliver on their goals in order to claim the bonus.
• Citing a major change in RARI token price from the formation of the original proposal as well as some added deliveriables, the budget is updated by 2000 RARI.
• added KPIs and the rationale for the same can be found below.
  a. Following up with foundation and service providers on their reporting and other deliverables. eg: per their report from Dec. '24, the FDN should have dropped an update on security council sometime in June/July but there is no update yet.
  b. There is a need for regular proposal review calls as well as various groups who have been funded to provide updates on their progress. The GovWG can facilitate these spaces ondemand.
  c. There maybe instances when the DAO would need other WGs to spin up for specific purposes, the GovWG will help these groups with their proposals and going through the governance process. At the same time, there maybe a need to establish new processes which the crew can assist with. Eg: A snapshot space for tempcheck could be spun up which would help in gathering sentiment before a proposal goes on chain vote so the authors have sufficient feedback to take next steps.
  d. Active and engaged delegates are key to a healthy DAO. The WG will collect data from meeting attendance, voting participation, community engagement on Forum and post a report on the current trends as well as suggestion on these numbers can be improved.

Hope these changes are sufficient to address your concerns @Jose_StableLab @cr1st0f

Abstract

This proposal advocates for the establishment of a 3 month trial of a Governance Working Group (GWG) within RARI DAO with the main goal of increasing the execution power of the DAO. The GWG will play a crucial role in moderating discourse, resolving disputes, maintain tooling and documentation and ultimately a training and testing ground for delegate led governance

Motivation

Governance today is primarily funded by the RARI foundations operational budget and facilitated through service providers & a community lead. While this approach offers a decent starting ground, the ideal state for the governance of the DAO is when it’s run by it’s delegates and funded directly by the DAO. In order to reach this state, the DAO should experiment by giving an increasing amount of responsibilities to delegates over time, test results and iterate. The WG framework offers a great playground to test such initiatives and ultimately plan and deploy a progressive decentralisation strategy.

Rationale

The formation of the GWG is rooted in the acknowledgment of the dynamic nature of decentralized governance & the imperative to adapt and evolve accordingly. By consolidating expertise and dedicating resources to governance-related tasks, RARI DAO can mitigate risks, optimise resource allocation & enhance overall community participation. The GWG will serve as a catalyst for positive change, driving innovation, efficiency & inclusivity in the governance processes of RARI DAO.

Specification

Goals

1. Governance Participation

• Propose and implement updates, incentives & metrics-based strategies to maintain and grow active governance participants
• Identify methods to increase high-quality participation in RARI DAO governance, and provide recommendations for fine-tuning governance processes toward efficacy & inclusivity

2. Governance Operations

• Develop, maintain, and regularly update governance onboarding process to facilitate the seamless integration of new members into the DAO.
• Maintain, research & upgrade governance tooling to facilitate smooth governance operations

3. Governance Documentation

• Establish, monitor, and enforce governance documentation, and explore developing a constitution, bylaws, and a code of conduct.
• Continuously update governance documentation to reflect evolving community needs and best practices.

4. Moderation & Dispute Resolution

• Proactively moderate discourse to filter out offensive, poorly defined, or spammy proposals.
• Serve as mediators to assist in resolving disputes and conflicts within the community.

Timeline

During the course of the trial period, tasks will be progressively allocated to delegates incharge of operations from the foundation to the DAO. A final report on the feasibility of this approach will be written and published at the end of the trial period

KPIs

• adherence to established governance documentation and protocols
• following up on past commitments from other groups such as the foundation and other service providers.
• facilitating regular governance meetings, atleast once a month and more based on demand
• Creating important structures within the DAO and facilitating the creation of working groups for specific needs of the DAO
• monitor and report activity metrics of the delegate program

MoS

Positive feedback from foundation & delegates about DAO led Governance operations

Multi-sig policies

• Assuming a 4 member squad, the multi-sig will be structured as 3 out of 4
• 50% compensation will be paid after 2 months
• 50% compensation will be paid upon submission of a report to the DAO at the end of the trial period
• Any leftover funds can be claimed as bonus by the squad upon fulfilling the goals stated in this proposal
• Multi-sig address: 0x2a39B257d4D62e212a1b6CdB07e54661293b04F2

Roles & responsibilities of each member

Steward/Operations Lead: @jengajojo

Oversees the group, coordinates tasks, leads allocation and execution of operations and ensures milestones are met

Advisor: StableLab/@Matt_Stablelab

Appointed by the foundation as advises on all things governance

Foundation Operator: @addie

Appointed by the foundation to lead & deliver parts of governance operations

Scribe & Ops Co-lead: @winverse

Prepares detailed documentation and assists in governance operations whenever needed

Budget

Role	Quantity	Compensation (RARI)
Steward & Ops Lead	1	4000
Advisor	1	1000
Foundation representative	1	0
Scribe & Ops Co-lead	1	4000
Buffer		1000
Total		10000