I think all meaningful discussion is happening here. Most of the TSB discord discussions are meet n greets, some debates, but mostly weâre just talking at the water cooler.
Good to know! Thanks !!!
Two simple questions:
-
How does the CC ensure transparency in their interactions and decisions with the DAO Admin Team, particularly in closed-door meetings where community members are not present?
-
How does the CC manage conflicts of interest that might arise from membersâ involvement in other parts of the TSB Ecosystem or broader web3 industry?
Important point from hishmad.
If the CC idea is implemented then all meetings and discussions should be public.
This would allow everyone to be able to judge the good faith & the real involvement of each person.
Hmmm⌠What about if the community developed the SIP collectively and it was then advanced by âArasakioâ, like the first few SIPs? It could be stated in the SIP itself that is was collectively developed by the community, perhapsâŚ?
-
- â - - Thoughts from others?
Note: specifically, this comment is in regards to SIPs associated with the CC that may be advanced after the CC is seated, mainly:
- CC remuneration
- the development of âhousesâ (or working groups)
Sounds good to me
Do we have an estimate date for the updated âversionâ of this SIP? I mean with all the feedback and opinions, and many comments, itâs getting a little difficult for me to keep track of what has been agreed to be changed or corrected or added. And with that, what can I say or not say on something that may have already been mentioned .
But yeah I think we need to start discussion on the updated version of CCs SIP, because there is already good feedback. (itâs not that Iâm pushing or anything like that just to also know the process of the SIPs)
These are VERY good questions!
- The reason this Q is so important is because weâre not yet established exactly HOW weâre going to meet the CC. The logistics of just getting the entire Admin on a call can be challenging, but when itâs 5 + 5 people on a single call, it becomes real tough to schedule time for global participants. For that reason, there MAY have to be bi-weekly 1:1 check-ins with CC members and 1 (or a few) reps of the Admin Team.
So, my point in discussing logistics is this: Assume we have 5 bi-weekly meetings with 5 different CC members and each is an hour. We could record those calls, but that would mean 2.5 hours/week of video footage for people to filter through.
An alternative might be that we post AI Summaries + Notes for each meeting?
The CC members can also post notes of their own.
The CC roles were intentionally written to be a bit ambiguous so the CC members can influence the ways the role takes shape, including how weâll meet with them.
THOUGHTS from the COMMUNITY are INVITED HERE!
- Conflicts of interest from CC membersâ involvement in other areas of the TSB ecosystem are avoided by:
A) not allowing people with other roles to run for CC (except by using the âgrace periodâ clause which will be reflected on the next version of the SIP, posted Friday), and
B) including a conflict of interest clause in the existing CC Code of Conduct for which the community at large can hold them accountable via the âProcess of Removalâ
But, if there are ways conflicts could slip the cracks given those protections, this is the place we can point them out and improve this SIP⌠Any ideas?!
I agree with that statement. Having all meetings public would help the community better understand the Admin Team, the CC members, and how they interact.
However, weâve not yet determined how the CC and Admin Team will meet. It might end up being 1:1 meetings or small groups to accommodate the time zones of all participants from Admin and CC. This could lead to hours of videos for people to keep up with each week. An alternative might be AI Summaries & Notes from each CC member and the Admin Team each week.
Also, when meetings are recorded or live-streamed there are trade-offs. While there is absolute transparency, endless data supports the fact that all involved parties will be less candid with each other, hiding some (potentially important) pieces of information for fear of public judgment. ((note: this was the thinking behind the âclosed-doorâ language initially included))
We will have a new version posted by Friday (tomorrow).
I agree! Even Iâm getting confused at this point.
((note: thatâs why Iâve been a bit forceful with making sure this thread stays closely on topic of this SIP, since there is so much to catch up on now for any person just joining the conversation))
My thought is: We prepare a shared meeting document like Google Docs, then we have the CC meeting either on the TSB Discord Stage, X Spaces, or live stream it on a new TSB DAO Twitch.
We screen share the agenda and record minutes right then and there. We could even add an agenda item that says âwhat can be publicly said about what was discussed behind closed doors?â
That way, we get used to building in public from the start. Iâve used similar approaches in my professional career, and theyâre some of the strongest teams Iâve ever been a part of.
- Keeps the CC honest
- Keeps SandFam informed
- Doesnât break faith with sensitive matters that deserve not to be aired publicly
The active requirement for CC members to disclose their associations and conflicts of interest. The fact that it doesnât automatically disqualify them is an incentive to keep disclosing, and when there are clear cases that it would introduce biase, we have the CC withdraw from that specific decision.
Like this!
Can you tell us more whatcha mean by the âwhat can be said publiclyâ part, @Lanzer? Once it is streamed and recorded it has already been said publicly. Unless I am misunderstanding your thought here.
Iâve held elected offices, served as a US presidential delegate, and sat on boards of directors of nonprofits for years⌠With my insights from those roles, I assure you that when meetings are recorded or live-streamed there are trade-offs. While there may be more absolute transparency than summaries and notes, when cameras are on, all involved parties will be less candid with each other, hiding some (potentially important) pieces of information for fear of public judgment. The consequences of this are usually backroom meetings that are completely off the record before the public meeting and/or representatives withhold important, relevant info for fear of ridicule, judgment, or debate.
All of that said, I am fine with live streaming and recording everything, even though I know very few people will watch hours of our meetings each week (since weâll likely have to meet more often than bi-weekly to accommodate different CC time zones) and that there will be CC members DMing the Admin Team the stuff theyâre worried about discussing on camera.
Thoughts?
What does the DAO Team Admin think about having a conversation with CC members and making it public? Maybe Diggin in the Sand would be a good option for that and I am not saying that all DAO Admin Team and CC members and all meetings should be done that way. I think that knowing their opinion on this discussion would be useful as well.
I am not saying that maybe we are trying to force something that is not efficient, by looking for the reports between CCs and DAO Team to be made public, but knowing their point of view would help to polish this SIP.
Weâll do it however the most people want!
If the community prefers everything to be recorded and cached somewhere, we can do that. But Iâve outlined the likely implications above.
We cannot ask the CC yet, since theyâre not seated, but their input would be just as (if not more) valuable than the Admin Teams.
My intuition, if it were all up to me: the Admin Team & all CC members release the AI summaries & Personal Notes after each of the meetings. The community is then invited to ask questions or add additional comments.
I think there should be no personal messages, no hidden conversations.
From the beginning this has always been a problem for me.
I consider hiding conversations (from everyone) to be an insult to our intelligence and a lack of respect for everyone.
If anyone has something to say, let them say it publicly.
The meetings should be held on the official podcast and available in audio on platforms such as Spotify or Deezer.
For those interested, Iâve thrown the first stone at the âHousesâ SIP Idea Community Advisory Board + Community Council
I changed the âHouseâ title to Advisory Board, which seems for fitting.
Not trying to off-topic here, so feel free to hop in there for this âtheme-forkâ
What I mean is there will still be some meetings or instances where closed-door session is needed. But at the public meeting what can be revealed is revealed, like âhey at this meeting we discussed Xâ, rather than SandFam not knowing the meetings exist at all.
Even though I know very few people will watch hours of our meetings each week
Yup, completely understood
Where does the line get drawn at âno private conversationsâ, though?
For example, Iâve met with most of our delegates now, just to chat about what we could do better to help them and get to know each other personally. Iâve still yet to meet you, but you donât wanna post our meeting on YT, do you?
Another example: Lanzer and I just met to discuss changes for this SIP for the next version based on the discussions here. We did not record that either. We didnât even think to record, because everyone will see the product of the conversation when we post the new SIP version tomorrow.
All of that said, despite our not having included a section that requires the streaming or recording of meetings, this is certainly not something the CC will be barred from doing if they wish. We can create a channel on our DAO YouTube account and post all of the meetings there for reference by anyone who wishes. I do believe the CC will find they want to leave some room for closed-door discussions on their agendas, as most governing bodies do. In such instances, of course, they would be expected to disclose the nature and outcomes of those conversations.
Oh shoot. Youâre right neither of us thought of that and we were talking about the recording topic of future CC meetingsâŚoh the hilarious irony lol
Ahh. Thanks for the clarity. Yeah, thatâs what I kinda alluded to above also.
When doors are closed it doesnât mean âshadyâ things are going on, but rather âsensitiveâ topics.
If/when that occurs, the CC and Admin Team would be expected to disclose the nature and outcome of those conversations, even if theyâre just portions of a larger meeting.
What are OTHERSâ THOUGHTS on this topic?!
Haha!! There already exists an âAdvisory Boardâ in the DAO, though.
I think the most descriptive term for this might be âWorking Groups,â but âHousesâ or âGuildsâ could make sense, too.
Great job opening a new discussion!!
This will be an important, related conversation to the CC in the months ahead
I understand and share @sebga perspective on the term âClosed-Door.â In Spanish, this expression is often associated with negative connotations, such as hidden activities, deceit, or lack of transparency. So maybe that could be our problem? Idk.
While I recognize that privacy is necessary, phrases like this can create distrust, especially when transparency with the community is essential.
The main goal of this proposal, in my view, is to find a community member to act as a bridge between the community and the DAO Team, which is excellent. However, including terms like âClosed-Doorâ leaves room for negative interpretations, particularly given the lack of transparency perceived in the ecosystem.
I donât think itâs necessary to specify whether meetings are private or not. For example, a CC, once a month, report back from the community to you on Diggin in the SAND and we all see what you think about it as CM, what things are being worked on and things like that. This would foster trust and transparency.
If we choose a CC that truly represents the communityâs interests, private meetings shouldnât be an issue, as long as they are clearly reported from the CC to the DAO. However, as a native Spanish speaker, reading terms like âClosed-Doorâ can naturally evoke suspicion or doubt.
Closed-Door = SUS, and I would vote NO if something feel suspicious for me