You know, I also thought the same thing about Community Councils SIP (the first time I read it), about not having âpowerâ and also other stuffs that I think I agree with you. However, I think that if we select the right people for these roles, we wonât have that POWER problem. Also, the Houses thing seems to me to be an excellent idea that in a certain way gives that Power.
Some people know about the task I took on this holiday , and I honestly think it would be too much for a CC in its current form (they way that it was written at the begginin 2 years). Thatâs why I thought it was reasonable that the terms should be 6 months: putting myself in the shoes of a future CC (which as a delegate I wonât do), I think itâs a very demanding role, especially if it includes keeping in constant contact with the Admin Team. But I think Iâll give up on the one year option unless a crowd comes asking for 6 months.
The idea of Houses seems even more logical and effective to me. By dividing responsibilities according to different areas of the community, it encourages more activity towards the DAO. For example, a VoxEdit House CC could promote SIPs related to VoxEdit tools, asset sales, promotions, etc., topics that voxel artists know well. It would not be so appropriate for a player, for example, to recommend changes in VoxEdit without that technical knowledge, although ideas are always welcome, it would be better that the proposals or ideas for proposals come from those who are 12 hours a day using those programs as GM or VE, it would be better that a LAND owner gives ideas on how to give more utility to his LAND and so on.
You will also feel more confident because if for example you canât keep up with a SIP discussion or vote, you will know that there will be others like you attending to those issues, or just me, but I would feel more safe if at some point I donât have time for the DAO but I have more colleagues keeping an eye for some proposalâŚ
Also, speaking of 'POWERâ, wich was something that worried me a little bitt, if there are more people involved in these Houses, communication within the community will be stronger, and opinions can be brought to the DAO more effectively through the CC. If ever the CC feels that an idea or the community voice is not being heard, I am sure that the people we are going elect to these roles will communicate it to the community, because they have their backing. That, in my opinion, is power. @KandidlyKristen we would only need to vote for people who we know will serve the community.
For @PickaxeMaster: Iâm still trying to fully understand the concept of reputation. No matter how much I read about it, Iâm still having some difficulty grasping it completely. Can you explain it a little bit more?
For SIPS Authors ( @Lanzer and @theKuntaMC ) : In the case that an idea that or more like an add-on to the established idea and that one is well accepted can be accepted, with the Ideas of the original SIP, do you (as the author or DAO team) have to make a new SIP joining the two? Or would two separate SIPs needs to be made? What criteria are considered to do something like this? I would think that this would work hand in hand, having the houses and the CC at the same time, I wouldnât see it with bad eyes, to be true, but I know that it would also be a good option for the houses to be established so that the CC arrive later, or for the CC to be chosen so that they build the Houses. I just want to know the process in cases like these .
We intentionally did not detail the full scope of these roles so that the elected CC may, in some part, make it what they think it should be.
KK reads this SIP and assumes the worst, but the power will lie in the hands of the newly seated CC to define their own roles in many ways.
You can run for CC if you want to!
We will be including the following section in the next version of this SIP (to be released in the next few days):
Eligibility Grace Period: Those who are currently serving in a role named in the Eligibility Check may self-nominate, if, and only if, they disclose their current role and commit to resigning from their role no later than 30 days after winning an election seat. If the candidate does not win, they are not required to resign. If the candidate does win but does not resign within 30 days, they forfeit their election seat, and the next runner-up will be chosen.
Which brings me to this:
In the case of this CC SIP, we will be posing a new/updated version that has been edited based on community feedback. It will overwrite the original post using the edit feature.
In the case of the âhousesâ idea from @PickaxeMaster, theyâve agreed to submit that as a separate SIP post-election so that the CC can help in the establishment of houses if/when that idea gains traction in discussion at that time.
FinallyâŚ
EXACTLY! The CC is kind of like a senate, congress, or parliament, in that theyâre elected by the community to serve as an official body; they can even write SIPs.
Like all governments, DAOs are fluid (ie, nothing is written in stone). The process gets moving and itâs up to those elected to offices or holding other positions of power, like delegates, to assert their influence for the greater good.
Havenât mentioned it before, but Iâve been involved in and run almost 2 dozen Kizen events! Iâve had some ups and downs, but when people really put in the effort, the results are enormous!
My suggestion to @PickaxeMaster was to wait until after the CC was seated and then open a SIP discussionâŚ
But, if the topic is hot right now, and you wanna get the conversation going, I also suggest that @PickaxeMaster open a new discussion in SIP: Ideas now. I also suggest cutting and pasting some of the ideas already shared here, whether by them or others.
There are over 100 replies to this CC SIP now. While we should never hold back on ideas, it is important to keep things succinct and on-topic. Just so when new people jump into the convo, they donât have hours of reading just to catch up.
Great question!!
Can you clarify a bit more what you mean here about the distribution?
Since the order would be:
seat the CC, then
develop the houses
Then⌠it would make sense to me if this SIP either:
start with payments directly to the CC whose responsibility it would then be to distribute somehow within the houses, or
delay the payments to individual CCâs and task them with that as part of setting up the houses â while this would incentivize them to get the houses and distro set up, it also dependent upon the assumption the âhousesâ SIP will be advanced
Note: thatâs not to say the âhousesâ SIP wonât succeed, but we can never assume any proposal will pass, nah mean? â Even the CC could be shot down.
Iâm sure this will get deleted as well as my other posts that already were even though it is on topic like my other posts were, but here goes.
I do not feel like Power After The Fact is what is important. It will not undo a vote if we point out that after the vote we were not listened to. You can see it blatantly obvious here. To prove why we need Power Before The Vote I point to times where the community gave their opinion, the Special Council and DAO gave lies to the community or ignored them, and then after the vote was over they corrected themselves. But what good does that do after the vote is over?
Even though I am being attacked for trying to tear down the entire DAO by giving proof as to why the Community needs a Voice and Power in the DAO Before The Fact, I stand by my words 100%.
The only way to truly achieve that, in my opinion:
Rewrite this SIP to say that the Community Council serves the Community (I already went through line by line making the changes - even though Iâm accused of not giving any suggestions and just trying to tear the entire DAO down)
Do not require only closed door meetings
Treat the Community Council the same as the Special Council. They promise to be there for the Communityâs Interests but since they canât/wonât then give the community the same voice. Put the CC Recommendations on the SIPs so the Special Council, Advisory Board, DAO Admin Team and the Community sees how the rest of the community feels before they vote
Remove all of the daily, weekly, bi-weekly and monthly requirements and treat them the same as the Special Council. Absolutely no requirements other than 3 of 5 voting on SIPs. (Not an attack, literally what the Constitution says)
Compensate the Community Council for their time. Apparently the Special Council doesnât want their funds so have them commit their funds to the Community Council. This is a no cost solution that compensates the work.
None of those would be a concern if we voted for people who we know will serve the community, like you suggest, and will give the Community an actual voice and power before the vote, not after.
Just like with Senate, Congress or Parliament votes, how many from the actual voting population follow the day to day conversations? Why would we expect those people to know how the overall community felt and the recommendations we give? What would be the response after the fact to the community not being respected, the delayed process of more SIPs and months of waiting?
No, if we are going to set up a Community Council then we need to do it right from the beginning. We are now what, 7 months into it after the early mistakes, and our closest response to correcting them is this SIP which as is written is just calling for closed door meetings with the DAO Admin team and no one else gets to see?
I like where you are going with that thought process, but no, the power I want for the Community is Power Before the Vote, not after.
ButâŚ
All of that being said, I feel it would be more beneficial to the Community if they had a seat at the actual table and werenât given the kids table on the side to sit at. I do not feel work should go uncompensated and I do not feel more funds should be taken from the project for something like sharing data when we have a forum where the community can share their interests for free.
The Special Council promised to fulfill this need. The DAO Admin team is the bridge between the community and the Special Council. So there is no need for further funds going to a select few individuals. But If this is the only way to get our voices heard and actual power before the vote, then there deserves to be compensation.
We already fund a legal team to cover that concern regarding the SCâs job. The DAO Admin team should be able to easily spot redundant and conflicting SIPs as well as know The Sandbox DAOâs vision. The only thing left from their promise is the Community Interest. If they canât fulfill that promise, replace them with individuals who can. Donât build an entirely new Council without any Power Before The Vote.
Every post Iâve made, even piece of proof Iâve given has been directly related to the âtrue spiritâ of this proposal which is giving the community âactual representation and power.â
Actually this was exactly what I was thinking right now,
I think it would also be a task of the CCs, to encourage communication, through the HOUSES, and supporting and promoting its establishment (future SIP in this case).
It just came to my mind that the budget for the CC could be discussed in another solo SIP, and that the community vote , but what if in the time in which the CCs are appointed and start their functions, until the time in which the SIPs Houses are in vote or cure, we would already have an idea of the work they do and also an estimate of how much should be their remuneration. In the future HOUSE SIP, it could have a section that mentions the payment for the CCs (that could give more time to ask to know what would be better) and also the remuneration that should be given for the time that they did not have, for when the SIP houses is accepted, if it is, if not, thatâs CCs fault .
That SIP can go back to a vote if it doesnât pass at first, and still include all the unpaid time for the CC by the time the HOUSE is operational (I mean, you guys didnât even want to give anything to the CCs at the beginning of the SIPđ ).
But this would be if we believe, in a majority, that HOUSES is an option to bet on, if it is not, the BUDGET issue for CCs should be addressed here in this SIP.
But basically it would be, leave the remuneration for the HOUSES SIP, and the CCs would promote that Idea or SIP or its acceptance in the votes and then they would have what they deserve.
Yes I know, anything can happen , but in my opinion I think it is something we should bet on, but if the majority thinks not, then Budget for CCs should be discussed here and not later.
If thats the case, i donât know what would be fair for a budget.
I completely agree with what you mentioned: the DAO exists to serve the community, and at the same time, the entire community is part of the DAO, whether we like it or not. Honestly, I had forgotten about this. Maybe itâs a misunderstanding due to language, but I firmly believe that the CCs should serve the community. To say that they are going to serve the DAO with the idea that, by doing so, they also serve the community because the DAO serves the community, is to overcomplicate things. In matters like this, we need to be clear and direct. So, who are they going to serve? Speak now or forever hold your peace. But it could be an easy fix of typing.
I agree. And I went line by line making those changes so they could be easily copy and pasted. Given the proof of incidents past that I previously shared, that is why I am so insistent on the wording being right here, and why I shared them as proof.
Here is my line by line breakdown of where I feel those changes should be made to ensure the Community Council serves the Community.
Since the DAO Admin team claims they are one in the same, then they should have no problems with those changes.
weâve already discussed how the âclosed-doorâ language has been omitted from the next version to be presented here in the next few days
the âus vs themâ mentality really wonât help us build
This statement expresses a fundamental misunderstanding of governance.
Positions of authority give additional power and responsibilities, inherently.
And, yes, you can undo a vote after the fact. It just requires another vote.
And, yes, for the Nth time: you are listened to! People are just sick of your rehashing the same grievances, looking backward instead of forward. In fact, 3 SandFam have independently DMed today knowing I needed a supportive pat on the back for dealing calmly with your intense levels of combative vitriol and (seemingly intentional) distractions from progress.
If you have any relevant suggestions on improving THIS SIP (besides âletâs burn everything downâ), youâre welcome to share them (invited to, actually).
Not only are you listed to, but your presence is desired here. You have so much energy and time to contribute. If somehow you could get yourself into buidl mode and out of destruction mode, weâd all stand to benefit from your contributions!
Community thoughts about the CC receiving a direct remuneration of 1k SAND/month??
Should we instead write into this SIP a requirement for CC members to help develop the âHOUSESâ (if/when such a SIP passes) and delay the 1k SAND (or another amount) for distribution among the houses?
Or a combo of 1 and 2: we pay the CC x number of SAND/month and task them with setting up the houses where weâd then distro y number of SAND among the houses?
I feel this may getting a bit diluted with too many âwhat ifâ dependencies.
But, of course, it is open to discussion!! THOUGHTS from others?
It could be a different SIP to pay the CC. But of course, we wanna streamline as much as we can for efficiency, right?
But it does make sense that a delay in remuneration would give us a better idea of the shape these roles take when operationalized (especially since theyâre written in a way that allows the CC members freedom in how they want to do their jobs).
I will debate things as written. When those changes are implemented that will be one less grievance I have with this proposed SIP.
I completely agree. You yourself admitted to the early mistakes and claimed this is to correct those mistakes. So if you feel that strongly, then put it in writing giving the Community Council actual power. Public Recommendations posted on SIPs at the same time and in the same location as the Special Council recommendation shares theirs is a great start.
It actually does not. At all. Proof being shared here many times by me and even Pickaxe. And I would like proof as to why you think the real power comes after votes and why there should the lengthy delay to correct issues by having the idea go through all the lengthy stages to correct something instead of just getting it as close to right from the beginning.
Those grievances are the exact reason why looking for we need to make changes to this SIP, which is why they have all ben on topic. Had you and Lanzer never questioned why it was needed, the proof never would have been given. And I didnât even start giving that proof until my 4th post in here after you guys kept trying to get me to just support it as is and âdrop my animosity.â
I have already given my relevant suggestions on improving THIS SIP multiple times, never once suggested to burn it all down. The only âattacksâ I made were in response to questions from the Co-Author of this SIP as to why the changes were needed.
This is where I started before being questioned as to why the changes were needed. The proof I shared was what you focused on instead of the reasoning the Co-Author questioned me about. That disagreement there is another big reason why I feel these changes are so important. The Co-Author wants to know why to implement the changes, the DAO Admin team wants to attack me for giving the reasons.
And as I already explained, I already authored my first SIP before you were on board. It was completely ignored and the team never responded. You joining the team has not given me confidence that would change as your sole focus since your first reply to me has just been to attack me and my âanimosity.â
Regardless, you asking me that question is a Completely Off-Topic Conversation from this SIP so can we please get back on topic and focus on this SIP?
You are right, besides if for example the options for the budgets for CCs would be 1K SAND or 1 SAND per month, people could go for the 1 Sand per month option or abstain .
I also like option number 2, buti think that has a problem. What happens HOUSES SIP is not accepted on voting and never becomes a reality? When will the CCs receive their compensation?
What if in the worst case scenario, a second attempt by HOUSE SIP to win voting, and it is not accepted, then DAO would be give CCs their remuneration, pending and consequential until the end of their CCâs term.
But whatever would be (whether the budget is here or in another sip), I think that if it is possible to add this responsibility to the futures CCs, it would be great⌠if others think the same of course, about the HOUSES.
This would be a great argument for why CC compensation could be its own SIP:
it would allow us to vote between different possible remuneration packages
it would take place at least a few weeks after the CC was seated (by the nature of the process), which would permit time for them to clarify their own roles a bit
we could even use ranked-choice voting (like weâd do with the CC vote) wherein voters can allocate some VP to one option and some to another
Those are excellent questions. I suggest you and @PickaxeMaster start a new SIP: Ideas thread to dig into the shape the houses would take. It is a related discussion to this CC SIP. So, the conversation in there might inform this a bit (especially in regards to the roles of the CC in how they help to establish âhousesâ).
That would be part of the new âhousesâ thread (which would inform the development of this SIP). So, get that convo started and see what others in the community think!
Itâs okay to tag people who you think may have more insights or help support your issue.
What are OTHERSâ THOUGHTS about the remuneration package for the CC being it own separate SIP advanced after the CC is seated?
Please also see the discussion about the related âhousesâ above + the new SIP Idea that @rocksymiguel and/or @PickaxeMaster may be advancing about âhousesâ (which are effectively âworking groupsâ operating within the CC, as proposed above).
, and I honestly think it would be too much for a CC in its current form (they way that it was written at the begginin 2 years). Thatâs why I thought it was reasonable that the terms should be 6 months: putting myself in the shoes of a future CC (which as a delegate I wonât do), I think itâs a very demanding role, especially if it includes keeping in constant contact with the Admin Team. But I think Iâll give up on the one year option unless a crowd comes asking for 6 months.
.
SIP: Ideas
was exactly what I was thinking right now,
, but what if in the time in which the CCs are appointed and start their functions, until the time in which the SIPs Houses are in vote or cure, we would already have an idea of the work they do and also an estimate of how much should be their remuneration. In the future HOUSE SIP, it could have a section that mentions the payment for the CCs (that could give more time to ask to know what would be better) and also the remuneration that should be given for the time that they did not have, for when the SIP houses is accepted, if it is, if not, thatâs CCs fault 
.
People are just sick of your rehashing the same grievances, looking backward instead of forward. In fact, 3 SandFam have independently DMed today knowing I needed a supportive pat on the back for dealing calmly with your intense levels of combative vitriol and (seemingly intentional) distractions from progress.
responsibility to the futures CCs, it would be great⌠if others think the same of course, about the HOUSES.