WIP-0: To incentivize decision making activity by establishing a decentralized Moderation team for the Forum

Essentially proposals could undergo a sentiment check prior to pass through to final ?

1 Like

Basically, I think this role is more of a nuanced role of moving up proposals and not quite as much of a reflection of leadership. Not everyone necessarily needs representation in this facet of governance as itโ€™s purely a discourse related proposal moderation.

I still believe that a formal leadership group would be beneficial for making executive decisions on items that do not require complete consensus or a snapshot vote for example.

Maybe in that context this nuanced, functional role (as opposed to a leadership role) needs to be performed by one or two people more familiar with discourse, governance, etc.

I would happily oblige; as I seek no actual glory in a role, but more of an opportunity to help and guide.

For example, should a good proposal be proposed but was not accurately formatted, and/or was not well expressed, I would happily volunteer to make adjustments and work with that person to move it forward, etc.

3 Likes

I think that the Conclave requires coordination of other mediums of communication. Hence, I think a group that makes the most sense would be:

  • someone familiar with Discourse and moderating the proposals
  • discord administrator
  • communicate spaces host
  • wagdie daily account

they have an important role on propagating new proposals out to community as well as moving them up within the discourse, coordinating the timing, etc

just a thought

4 Likes

I understand more what is needed from the individual.

I hard vote

Bus

For darkblade guild.

4 Likes

could I self-nominate?

twitter: @idk_LFG
discord: isk
OS / wagdies: https://opensea.io/0xae5c67CeB16B4851F169EC1C65F405D7e6308b90

My perspective on the project covered in my wagdie investment thesis blog:

As a moderator, Iโ€™d mainly be interested in helping to evaluate proposals and move them forward.

3 Likes

These names are listed in order of when they were nominated in this thread, it is not meant to represent the top candidate or be based on how many nominations.

All nominations = 1 nomination and we will need to vote. But I have a feeling even King might accept what youโ€™ve said and allow another to take the role if voted in.

2 Likes

Trust Level 4 can only be granted by staff. Rather than Representatives of the Conclave becoming Moderators, maybe Trust Level 4 is the appropriate place for them.

4 Likes

Nominations in order of mention only, all mentions = 1, no reason to mention more than once. Unless you wish to make a counter-mention on why they shouldnโ€™t:

  • King Offling (nominated, but also arguments made against this nom)
  • Bus
  • EntiTez
  • Balyan
  • 0xMerlin
  • Popa1986
  • Josiah
  • Dontfeedthewolf
  • Peach
  • Rom
  • LostCowboy
  • PrinceHamDoe
  • Basically Angel
  • TheGoldenEel
  • Metaminati
  • Brennen.eth
  • Isk

Timelines for checkin in and renewing/Fixed-Term:

  • Maybe every 6 weeks?

We donโ€™t have room for this many Moderators, but T4 users can serve the purpose of being Conclave Representatives which have the same ability (moving proposals to Final):

  • 6 (seems to be leading number, most agree start smaller)

T4 Users = Conclave Representatives & will be the curators of Proposals bringing them from New Proposals to Final Proposals to be voted upon.

5 Likes

I like this initiative, thanks for bringing it up!

I grasp the Council โ€žsolelyโ€œ as the administrative force behind the community, that ensures people know about new proposals and sets them up for voting.

Iโ€™d like to explore the process of doing so.

  • Will any โ€žConclave Representativeโ€œ be able to individually curate proposals for final voting or do they need consensus within the โ€žCouncil of Sixโ€œ? I opt for the latter.

  • Whats the requierment for a proposal to be considered for final voting?

2 Likes

I would like to bring up a 2-part sub-proposal before any advance to snapshot voting.

  1. Active Acceptance Clause
  • 1a) Nominations must accept nomination here on Discourse prior to the final deadline for moving to snapshot.

  • 1b) Self-nominations serve as an acceptance by default.

Commentary: Nominations should be aware of their nomination and agree to accept based on their own desire AND expectation of being able to handle the duties (time restraints, outside obligations, etc). This also allows anyone nominated to actively or passively โ€œstep downโ€ under Rule 1 without necessarily implying that they are stepping down under Rule 2.

  1. Singular Nomination Clause
  • 2a) Nominations must agree not to accept nomination under more than 1 name in the case that they have 2 or more separate forward-facing personae.

Commentary: This would hopefully dissuade individuals from duplicitously abusing the system by accepting multiple nominations of any current or future personae as a way to garner more power towards moving proposals to snapshot. Due to the nature of WAGDIE I believe that multiple nominations of the same underlying individual, intentionally or unintentionally, may reasonably occur. While it relies on โ€œthe honor systemโ€, I would like to see individuals who value staking their honor as pillars of the community.

6 Likes

Seconded!

:skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull:

2 Likes

๐•ด ๐–๐–š๐–’๐–‡๐–‘๐–ž ๐–†๐–ˆ๐–ˆ๐–Š๐–•๐–™ ๐–“๐–”๐–’๐–Ž๐–“๐–†๐–™๐–Ž๐–”๐–“ ๐–‹๐–”๐–— ๐–›๐–”๐–™๐–Šโ€ฆ
๐•ด ๐–†๐–‘๐–˜๐–” ๐–œ๐–”๐–š๐–‘๐–‰ ๐–˜๐–š๐–Œ๐–Œ๐–Š๐–˜๐–™ (๐–Ž๐–‹ ๐–“๐–”๐–™ ๐–†๐–‘๐–—๐–Š๐–†๐–‰๐–ž ๐–Ž๐–’๐–•๐–‘๐–Ž๐–Š๐–‰) ๐–™๐–๐–†๐–™ ๐•ฟ4 ๐–š๐–˜๐–Š๐–—๐–˜ ๐–’๐–š๐–˜๐–™ ๐–๐–†๐–›๐–Š ๐––๐–š๐–”๐–—๐–š๐–’ (3/6) ๐–™๐–” ๐–’๐–”๐–›๐–Š ๐•น๐–Š๐–œ ๐•ป๐–—๐–”๐–•๐–”๐–˜๐–†๐–‘๐–˜ ๐–™๐–” ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–“๐–†๐–‘ ๐•ป๐–—๐–”๐–•๐–”๐–˜๐–†๐–‘๐–˜ ๐–†๐–˜ ๐–† 2๐–“๐–‰ ๐–‘๐–†๐–ž๐–Š๐–— ๐–”๐–‹ ๐–‰๐–Š๐–‹๐–Š๐–“๐–˜๐–Š ๐–™๐–” ๐–’๐–†๐–Ž๐–“๐–™๐–†๐–Ž๐–“ ๐–™๐–๐–Š ๐––๐–š๐–†๐–‘๐–Ž๐–™๐–ž ๐–”๐–‹ ๐•ฑ๐–Ž๐–“๐–†๐–‘ ๐•ป๐–—๐–”๐–•๐–”๐–˜๐–†๐–‘๐–˜ ๐–œ๐–Ž๐–™๐–๐–Ž๐–“ ๐–™๐–๐–Š ๐•ฎ๐–”๐–“๐–ˆ๐–‘๐–†๐–›๐–Š.

8 Likes

Shouldnโ€™t we use an odd number to refrain from ties in voting?

5 Likes

We could have an Admin serve as a tie-breaker. I was nominated and I already am an Admin, having worked on this discourse.

If There is any objection, the 6 Conclave Representatives could NOT include myself/ be a separate vote. However, for fairness and because of the goal of decentralization & this proposed system being fair - I would allow for any fair objections to this, or alternative ideas, or even some consideration of voting to make sure a majority are OK with this.

1 Like

๐•ฟ๐–๐–Š ๐–•๐–š๐–—๐–•๐–”๐–˜๐–Š ๐–”๐–‹ ๐–™๐–๐–Š ๐•ฟ4 ๐––๐–š๐–”๐–—๐–š๐–’ ๐–Ž๐–˜ ๐–“๐–”๐–™ ๐–‹๐–”๐–— ๐–’๐–†๐–๐–”๐–—๐–Ž๐–™๐–ž ๐–›๐–”๐–™๐–Ž๐–“๐–Œ ๐–‡๐–š๐–™ ๐–’๐–†๐–๐–Ž๐–“๐–Œ ๐–˜๐–š๐–—๐–Š ๐–™๐–๐–Š๐–—๐–Š ๐–Ž๐–˜ ๐–† ๐–’๐–Ž๐–“๐–Ž๐–’๐–š๐–’ ๐–“๐–š๐–’๐–‡๐–Š๐–— ๐–”๐–‹ ๐–‰๐–Ž๐–‹๐–‹๐–Š๐–—๐–Š๐–“๐–™ ๐–•๐–Š๐–—๐–˜๐–•๐–Š๐–ˆ๐–™๐–Ž๐–›๐–Š๐–˜ ๐–†๐–Œ๐–—๐–Š๐–Š๐–Ž๐–“๐–Œ ๐–œ๐–Ž๐–™๐– ๐–™๐–๐–Š ๐–•๐–—๐–”๐–•๐–”๐–˜๐–†๐–‘.
๐•ฟ๐–๐–Š ๐•ฎ๐–”๐–“๐–ˆ๐–‘๐–†๐–›๐–Š ๐–œ๐–Ž๐–‘๐–‘ ๐–‡๐–Š ๐–™๐–๐–Š ๐–’๐–†๐–Ž๐–“ ๐–‰๐–Š๐–™๐–Š๐–—๐–’๐–Ž๐–“๐–†๐–™๐–Ž๐–”๐–“ ๐–”๐–‹ ๐–† ๐–•๐–—๐–”๐–•๐–”๐–˜๐–†๐–‘๐–˜ ๐–‹๐–†๐–™๐–Š.

2 Likes

I agree with this btw and have submitted a response above.

Also agree with @M3RL1N & want to welcome @Islemarauder to the thread.

@hersilence.eth has brought up a good point though, outside of discourse and I wanted to bring them in here for transparency.

  • Clarity on the T4 role/ CR (Conclave Representative)
    • Function, Term, Number of Representatives

For simplicity sake, I would say we shouldnโ€™t complicate things. I intend to reach out to someone to make a simple Graphic to add to this forum once our CR/T4 Reps are setup:

  • AUTHOR (individual user) creates a Proposal Idea/Draft
  • DISCOURSE is used for the Community & T4 to examine Proposals
  • T4/CR curates Proposal Drafts & assist Author in moving it to Final Proposal
  • Snapshot voting takes place to determine if a Proposal passes or not.

As for the T4 Curation Process, @M3RL1N brought up:

  • Quorum which definitely should exist, involve majority of CR.

Final thoughts, question though is chicken & egg. Should the Conclave Representatives/T4 come into existence first and establish Quorum and other rulesets/functions. Or would we like to figure that out BEFORE we nominate our (6) so all know how it works?

2 Likes

I suggest we establish the variables first and then vote on the candidates.

In this way we -

  1. Know what weโ€™re voting for
  2. Have practice with proposals
2 Likes

This is the nuanced, grinding part of governance but itโ€™s necessary :slight_smile:

1 Like

I would also propose myself for the position if no one else has DAO proposal experience. If they do, then not necessary.

I feel like this would be important in the event we need to redirect something back for formatting, structure, open-ended proposals, etc as we will probably need to make recommendations and direct them back to rework.

Recognizing this is a marathon and not a sprint, I donโ€™t mind waiting on voting until this is fully fleshed out. I agree that 6 is too little representation, and voting for 6 without fully understanding how Conclave representation/T4/quorum works (in plain English that even newcomers could reasonably understand) feels like an uninformed vote. I worry that itโ€™s getting a little complicated already. 14 moderators seems almost the same without all the added complexity. Iโ€™m not saying we shouldnโ€™t differentiate between mods/Conclave Reps/T4 etc, these are all actually great ideas. Just that any and all voting should be done after all the moving pieces are in place and can be communicated out in laymenโ€™s terms.