Made up of community members of the Sandbox, the DAO Governance Working Group could be a steering committee that works to bring the SandFam to the DAO and addresses shortfalls.
Cyril’s DAO team is administrative in nature. The Special Council have many other responsibilities in their own lives–leaders like Yat Siu can’t be expected to participate to the extent we’d want when leading a global company of 300+ companies, and the Advisory Board are more consultant in nature. There’s no “governing body” that focuses on the daily workings of the DAO.
I want to draft up a SIP, similar to how the ApeCoin has a Governance Working Group, where they regularly meet, publicly broadcast those meetings with an agenda & meeting minutes, produce reports, listen to the community and develop action items from it, and manage initiatives/programs.
For instance: the GWG wouldn’t review SIPs, that’s the DAO team’s role. Instead, I imagine we would hold regular public meetings (on Twitch or Twitter Space or Zoom), similar to a City Council meeting, and have people come and talk topics important to them, or discuss programs, etc. It could also produce a quarterly transparency report that gives SandFam more insight into how the DAO connects to the Sandbox Game.
Yes, this is boring. And yes, it’s not super sexy. But I see a BIG gap in connecting the SandFam to the DAO. The only people here are those who are REALLY motivated. We need to make it easier for SandFam to connect to the DAO. A Governance Working Group can help us get there.
I think this is an interesting topic although one worry I have is perhaps too many layers? But then again, if a working structure is drafted accordingly, might work. Probably the individuals are on somewhat a payroll like how the APE Council works and they work more on the community side. I’m not too familiar with the inner workings though but might be worth to have a clear structure fleshed out beforehand. Perhaps a conversation with an early volunteer group who wants to make this happen together with the TSB team would be fruitful in structuring a working model. After all, the TSB team is much better connected to the community than the DAO at this point in time
Fair point, dawhat! I think I’ll do a podcast episode with one of the ApeCoin GWG members to get a feel for how they work and what they recommend. Could be a cool episode!
Can you tell me more about the layers that you are worried about? I’d like to know more about that.
Just wondering if the community might feel like its gatekeeping to introduce a governance group between the DAO. It might feel that way although having said that from personal experience, I think it’s better to have than not. Perhaps it can be based on Voting Power via delegation. Aka, the governance group also represents those with significant voting power which makes sense in some cases. On the other hand though, that might cause abuse as certain parties who may not have the interest of the DAO or TSB to gain large control over the DAO. There’s always a risk involved in that sense
on that basis, I guess the best way is to determine what are the specific roles best suited in this situation. Naturally, the advocacy of participating in the DAO falls under the local market teams at this point in time as well so perhaps it can be collaborative in nature. Would love to know more how it works, when you do that AMA would be keen to listen in
Have a question here. Are you proposing a facilitation committee to get people engaged to the DAO? Or a team to implement SIPs?
AFAIK Governance and Facilitation roles differ, correct me if I’m wrong. Governance handles the technical aspects of SIPs such as implementation, smart contracts etc. Facilitation will be one to get the word out, a PR dept if you would.
a facilitation committee to get people engaged to the DAO. The DAO team is already set up to facilitate implementation of the SIPs.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said about other DAOs having GWGs look at SIPs, but I think our GWG should focus on different things. The DAO team already handles SIPs and I see no need to disrupt that. We need more of it, to be honest. Most of my SIPs have been waiting almost 60 days since I first submitted them.
But yes, I think our GWG should just be facilitation.
Yeah I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I guess since we are still in Phase 1 we should expect things to move slowly and not work out smoothly. Can’t say the same by this time next year as processes should be better by then, hopefully.
I reached out to an ApeCoin DAO GWG member to do a podcast episode on SANDDAO to educate us on how a Working Group works. The member is specific to the Governance Working Group, so my questions for this SIP Draft are pretty specific to how a GWG could run within the Sandbox and not conflict with the responsibilities of the Sandbox DAO team.
Here is Bojangles resignation post. I think this confirms that all working group meetings need to be public (either live streamed through twitch) or upgraded to YouTube.
Quotes of note
The current structure, initially devised by WG0, has proven ineffective
Multiple stewards across various working groups are not actively participating in their steward responsibilities
no one wants to be “the rat”, but I feel that the DAO needs to know what is actually happening.
The steward role in its current form is a popularity campaign that has ZERO accountability once elected
There are a few Stewards…who bust their butts day in and day out which gives the DAO the perception that everyone is working when in reality that is far from what is actually happening.
there is minimal communication/coordination between the various working groups
I have not participated in any meetings with the Special Council since assuming my role and have found “all working groups” calls poorly attended
This lack of internal communication is highly inefficient in a setting where all working groups should be working together to achieve one common goal.
Instead we have created separate entities all doing their own thing.
