Even if we leave away the idea of the houses, the time
the SIP is written again
other candidates are declaring themselves (anyone else declared himself besides Lanzer?
the campaign time
the voting time
The people will be elected around March best case. Until the December 25 and new election of SC they will be 9 months max. Maybe this first mandate could be until December 25 and one of the topic of the CC could be to prepare the new SIP for Dec 25 voting with at that time 6 months, with houses, unpack the idea of reputation.
For this first mandate if someone decide to step down after 5 months we can continue at 4 no need to replace.
For me this is the most pragmatic approach as long as you state in this SIP that this CC format is only for the first mandate and will be revised in Dec.
With regards to the âhousesâ the preparation of the new SIP by the CC can be done in collaborative exchange with entire community members and the 12 delegates that were also selected top represent this diversity of houses and culture.
PS: just on your question about duration: I found 6 months short but if we give freedom to member of CC to choose after 6 to continue or to resign without voting it would be good but forcing the voting after a year. (you can always get rid of CC member if they do not follow the Code of conduct)
the timing wonât be exactly aligned with the SC and AB due the campaign and voting periods of the CC â so, no matter 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years, there would be an offset of time (which is useful for onboarding, so itâs not multiple new bodies all at once) â Great point!!
the âHousesâ idea can be written into the SIP for future elections, but this first vote might be any 5 community members â this seems like a GREAT IDEA â thoughts, @Lanzer? OTHERS? â I Like this idea because it seems only Lanzer has advanced his name as a candidate, so far.
Anyone who is reading this: We hope youâll consider running for CC yourself OR shooting some DMs to SandFam who you think would make a great candidate and encouraging them to run!
@KCL idea is good, it gives time to prepare for a new structure, whatever it might be, and have a transitory CC until the end of this mandate.
I might be alone here, but I donât think the CC nominees should be self nominated, but rather apointted by the Community. Something like a Meritocracy (Merit + Democracy)
All the members that I believe it would make good CC members, arenât going to self apply to the job, but they might be willing to accept to do it, if they were to be asked and invited by the Community at large.
My suggestion to get the first batch of nominees would be an open Poll, where anyone can add names there and vote on the forum.
The Top 10, or 20 or 30 or whatever the number is, of the most voted members, would go to the Snapshot voting with SAND for the final elections.
In between the Poll closing and the SAND voting, any nominees in the Top X that donât want to be part of the CC, would give enough time to remove them if they donât wish to participate.
Meritocracy Nomination with direct Democracy Election.
I absolutely considered a more meritocratic nomination system, too!
It just seemed like a cumbersome process that could still be readily implemented as things are currently written (with self-nominations) without disqualifying self-nominations (which itâs looking like we might need since weâve only got one candidate still).
If the community really wants to see a specific individual nominated, they can:
reach out to them in private and encourage them to self-nominate
and/or
make a forum post tagging them and asking them to self-nominate, where other community members can chime in with their support
Term of service for CC
I think 1 year is good. Not too long to feel like its a burden, not too short to leave a non-lasting impact.
3 reasons:
Remember that SIPs can generally take months to be written and finally come up for voting. In that time, we wonât want a âchange of guardâ just because we want to rotate new people in. Sure, a person can be reelected, but that also means putting the same individual in a precarious situation(of possibly being voted out).
If we are to apply the method thatâs suggested for choosing a CC member, i.e voting Top 10/20 and then narrowing it down, itâll be time consuming. Are we not going to consider the fact that if a CC is formed, say, in January, people will need to start that process of nominating in March, and then voting in May to prepare to be seated in June? Doesnât it feel like we are already chasing away the current CC 3 months into being seated? Nothing much will get done because CC members may feel that theyâre only seated for 6 months, with half of it preparing for the next vote, so why bother.
If we are preparing members of CC for a position in Special Council, said person(s) should be given a reasonable amount of runway to learn the ropes of managing various roles, if we expect the SC to perform a certain way. 6 months is too short for that.
Nomination
We should allow both self nomination, as well as nomination by the community.
Houses
Idea is good, probably choosing a better term will be better.
My concern about segmenting people is that it may lead to conflict between âHousesâ, but its worth a shot to see how it goes in the first term. I think its important that if we implement this, that we emphasize to ALL CC members that the underlying message should be cohesion and not conflict.
Reputation System
Sounds good too, most forums have similar model. But not a good idea to replace it as VP, because of multiaccounting. The Reputation Points that people accrue in Forums should only be used in the FORUMS(polls, voting for SIP Ideas), and not for actual SIP voting.
Removal of SC
Not a good idea because weâll need people with various expertise (legal, running a web3 organisation etc) to share their insights, and most importantly understanding the legal implications of SIPs, before handing down their recommendations. A Community Council that has a 6 months (fleeting) mandate just wonât cut it.
Thereâs way more than reports. CC gets to be the eyes and ears of the community. What is making you believe that the CC is going to answer the DAO Admin Team like a lapdog?
I thought it was lack of interest until Ep-001 when Cyril gave his rationale. YesâŚhe should have said it 7 months ago, but heâs saying it now, and I find it to be genuine.
36:01, âIâm not a professional community manager and I donât know how to address that community properly or do that kind of thing, so maybe thatâs where this perception came from in the first place. We donât know how to reach out to you guys because Iâve never been facing a community of thousands and being able to answer to everything they say.â
38:17, âfrankly what was poor communicationâ ⌠âbut was rushed was the way we announced itâ
41:01, ââŚbut now in retrospect I definitely feel we could have done a better job explaining thisâŚâ
This CC SIP is opening the door.
If Iâm electedâŚI intend on making them as public as possible. I donât think itâs okay to be recording every word in every situation, but I want to see us building this DAO in public. Thatâs my goal anyways, and Iâll be communicating how this all plays out and if we encounter roadblocks to that goal.
Thatâs a fair point. And I was SUPER critical of TSB doing this to push a SIP into quorum. But now that the 12 delegates have been announced, 24M VP came from the TSB wallet. From what I see, they have 27-24=3M VP now, equal to the other delegates.
Thereâs a lot of stuff I agree with you on KK, but I donât believe Kunta is trying to paint you in that lightâŚI think youâre really intense right now, and I think heâs making the right choice to engage you on that.
â6 months to me feels rather optimalâ
I agree 2 years is too long, I like 1 year more than 6
âMembers can always be nominated multiple timesâ
Thatâs a really fascinating suggestion, @PickaxeMaster. I really like it. Iâm trying to process it in my brain. So there would be a certain number of people per house, and each person would be elected in a House, and each house member would be paid an equal share of X.
With that many house members, weâd need a few secretaries to coordinate and record.
It could work. I think they should still do most of what we already put in the CC SIP, namely represent the community to the DAO Admin Team. Maybe we could have each House elect a House Liaison to fulfill that role.
I prefer a 1 year term. 6 months feels too short to make a meaningful contribution, and holding elections twice a year might be too much for the community. I think we can refocus that on accountability. 1 year will give them enough time to plan and see through some positive changes they aim drive.
That may have been your original intention but I suggest reading the SIP as it is being proposed to us. According to this, as it is written and I quoted, there is no end result of the data collecting other than closed-door meetings with the DAO Admin Team. Nothing about posting the CCâs opinion, like I mentioned should be done with the information.
So were there other things you originally said needed to be included that werenât included in what is actually being proposed here?
Why are 5 community members needed to be the eyes and ears of the community for just the DAO Admin team? Why not for the Special Council, Advisory Board and Community at large? I, and others in here, already explained that we felt that was what they were already doing according to what is still currently posted on the DAO website, but if that isnât what they are doing then why is there nothing about sharing the recommendation of the Community Council with people outside of the DAO Admin team? Although, I guess saying that this SIP isnât needed because we thought that was already being handled is off topic of this SIP somehow, so I have to be careful bringing up facts relating to this SIPâs necessity or Iâll be silenced for being off topic of this SIP.
This community is big, yes, but I managed to keep up with all the different channels, different servers, twitter, reddit, facebook, instagram, youtube, twitch, etc etc and barely missed anything from the community at large all while working full time and raising a toddler. Itâs not difficult to figure out what the community wants. The hardest part was using google translate to keep up with what people were saying in the other language channels, but since I havenât seen any requirements in the SIP regarding reaching out to those communities, I donât see that as being the proposed need for this. But I still made it work. They could easily pay one person to do that job if they canât do it themselves without requiring 5 people to put in the free labor for it to submit reports.
The problem was what happened after sharing that information with the team and one of the big reasons Iâm opposed to this unless the changes I suggested (or similar changes that others shared that I commented on approvingly) are implemented before it is brought to a vote.
Gee, youâd think me giving suggestions on how to change it and proof as to why those changes are needed would be on topic, but I guess not.
And for why I believe the âlapdogâ part regarding this SIP? I have already explained that. Because I read the SIP. âAs official representatives of the DAO, CC members help disseminate DAO information throughout the community and the broader general public.â âAt closed-door meetings with the DAO Admin Team.â âCommit to serving The Sandbox DAO.â And because history is what makes me believe that, including the quotes from the website, quotes from the forums, quotes from tweets and quotes from AMAs. But I am not allowed to talk about it or share the truth because no matter how many direct quotes I give, I will be called a liar and be suspended for sharing those quotes.
What door? Twitter is public, Discourse is public, Discord is public, Reddit is public, Telegram is public. What door is closed right now with the communityâs interests? If itâs too much, state that all opinions needing to be shared with the DAO Admin team need to be posted on the Forums. Thatâs what we do with The Sandbox. And how are they opening the door with closed door meetings? As the SIP itself says:
But at the same time:
So I guess that even though they are defined in this SIP Proposal/Discussion as closed door meetings I am a liar for sharing what is exactly posted word for word in this. So Kunta is right and I am wrong by quoting what is written in the proposed SIP since I am a liar for quoting it.
Iâm glad you are allowed to be critical of things. I am not. And when I point out the truth on one SIP I get called a liar that is just trying to grind the entire DAO to a halt regardless of the fact that I havenât commented on any other SIPs in months, my opposition to this one SIP and my ideas on how to improve it to make it so the community actually has a voice and power are just me trying to grind the entire DAO to a halt. So I am not allowed to comment on this or I will get suspended.
But I am happy for you that you can go completely off topic by talking about the history of things and how they relate to this SIP since historical things relating to the reason to trust this SIP or not are off topic for this SIP discussion somehow.
I am not allowed to comment on this or I will be suspended. Only you guys are allowed to comment on these things. Although I guess I quoted the SIP saying the meetings were closed door and the attack on me for sharing misinformation claiming that the meetings are closed door so I will likely be suspended now for pointing it out.
Unfortunately right now I am being called a liar for saying those SC meetings are closed door, so since they are not closed door and are already public, there is no need to do this. I appreciate it though. I am a liar and believed the Constitution when it said âEach Special Council recommendation will be unsigned,â but I guess that information is all already publicly available so I will keep looking for it.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Especially for this round of elections since weâve only got a single candidate, so far.
What are othersâ thoughts on this SIP including community nominations in addition to self-nominations?
In fact, I want to formally invite the community (and our delegates) to ânominateâ anyone you think would be a good fit (even if they hold a conflicting role in the TSB ecosystem since weâre very likely going to write in those suggested changes to give a 30-day âgrace periodâ to quit a current role and move over to the CC).
You can nominate community members 2 ways:
privately - convince them to run in DMs
publicly - make a post here (ideally, signed by a few people) calling into action a qualified candidate
When I stated theyâre not defined, I was referring to how theyâd be carried out. Meaning, that we arenât even sure how weâre going to get 5 CC members and a few members of the Admin Team into a single space at the same time, logistically speaking.
We can remove the words âclosed-doorâ and we can commit to at least making the notes of meetings available publicly. But the fact is, we may have to take meetings with them individually or in small groups just to make it work.
@theKuntaMC Sorry if I missed it, but just to confirm, would it be possible to consider compensation for those 5 members before the SIP goes to voting?
The idea of COMPENSATION has been mentioned by a few people now.
Nobody has suggested any numbers for discussion. That one is not a simple yes/no decision for inclusion, but we also must achieve a community consensus around a fair rate of remuneration.
Note: I just added the words, âSuggestions, Not Required,â to the unpublished draft after the âChecklist for Successâ because we donât want this to feel like an âunpaid jobâ. But if it is a compensated role, I do not think those should be suggestions any longer.
So, the questions are:
what is the rate of compensation, if any?
how does that influence the responsibilities in terms of required effort
The nomination period is open until the 22nd.
Weâll post an updated version of the SIP (by editing the original post above) within the next few days.
It feels consensual that everyone prefers 1 year mandates as opposed to 6 months or 2 years. I guess it does give enough time to make things happen and leave a legacy behind for the next mandate to carry on.
Well everyone would be able to join any House, then we could have a House Council (HC) and from that House Council (HC) the nomination of a Member to the Community Council (CC).
Although it feels like itâs stratisfying the community and creating layer upon layers. The way I see it is that, for example the VoxEdit house, would not only engage in the DAO matters but also would build a closer relationship with the voxEdit product team.
The same would apply to the Game Maker House, it would have itâs own Council so it can nominate the person to the CC, but having all the Game Maker Creators aligned, it would make feedback to Game Maker Product Team so much more relevant.
So you catch 2 birds with 1 stone.
In forum Organization would be like a General House Tab, like the one below.
There wouldnât be need for Secretaries, as that one be of the responsabilities by each House Council (HC) to do so.
This is the trickiest part, but I believe a Reputation system that would reward Members based on their contributions would be the fairest system, meaning that you donât even need to be a House Council (HC) member to be compensated by all the efforts and contributions.
Reputation would be solely for the Forum, not to substitute the VP, my bad if I expressed it incorrectly. Reputation would be a way to distinct Members for their contributions over time.
My idea of revenue for the Houses would be (doing flat numbers just for the sake of being simpler):
House Overall Budget = 500K SAND / Year
20 SIPâs / Year = 25K SAND / SIP
5 Houses = 5K SAND / SIP
On your account page, you can add a field to add your Wallet Address
While voting on an Active SIP, all members get snapshoted their VP. So itâs possible to link Voters with their DAO profiles through the Wallet Address.
Letâs say each House has 500 members, out of those, 250 voted on an active SIP.
The elected Community Council member of that House would get 10%, so 500 SAND per SIP (This would be the member with the most responsabilities and time consuming)
House Council would get 40%, so 2000 SAND. Iâd imagine the House Council having about 10 Council members, so it would be 200 SAND each.
House Members would get 50% divided by everyone else, so if there were 250 Voters (-11 from CC and HC) that would be 2500 SAND divided by 239 Members. Which would give about 10 SAND per voter.
While itâs rather a complex system, everyone is rewarded from participating, either by voting, contributing with input on the DAO and get Reputation, getting elected to the House Council and Community Council.
I wouldnât expect this to be done in the next 6 months, but I rather take more time to build something that lasts the test of time.
This isnt particularly a bad thing either, it means a SIP is not consensual for the growth of the Sandbox. I believe that in the end, either you are a builder, a creator, a player or an investor, everyone wants to see the Sandbox wins.
In my opinion that role would fit in the Advisory Board. Otherwise we end up with too many people on the top of the hierarchy doing nothing. Additionally the DAO has hired a Lawyer firm to handle legal.
I love seeing people change their position based on new information and/or community consensus!
I agree that 1-year term seems to be the most favored here.
That change will reflected in the next version of this SIP, which weâll post in the next few days (replacing the original post via the edit feature). We will notify the thread when it is updated!
I always say, âDonât be sorry, be silly,â when people apologize unnecessarily, lol
: ) Donât be sorry for a long post â it is concise, on-topic, and well-organized.
In regards to the idea of âHousesââŚ
Thank you for continuing to explain the idea so we can better understand.
It is starting to sound like âworking groups,â which other DAOs have also explored (often with great challenges). Having low participation currently might also make this kinda segmenting a challenge in operational efficiency (at least, at this point).
What would you say about your being an author (or co-author f you find others to advance this with) on a SIP that adds this feature to the CC sometime later in 2025?
That would give the DAO time to grow its numbers before adding layers of complication and give us all more time to clearly define it how would function.
THOUGHTS FROM OTHERS AOUT THIS???
I hear two ideas:
