Existing Governance on Steward (Re)Elections
Based on VDP-19 which came into effect on Jan 27, 2022 (see Snapshot vote), we are just two weeks away from steward (re)elections.
VDP-19 defines the process as follows:
“In a vote necessarily recurring every six months, members of all working groups vote on whether the steward should remain in place in an anonymous poll on Discord or Discourse. If a majority of members of all working groups do not confirm the steward, the steward is offboarded.”
Suggested Operationalisation of the Process
- Recurring votes starting on every February 1st and every August 1st with members and guests of all working groups being entitled to vote on all candidates
- Vote on Discord in #ㆍcross-wg-chat, using a bot for anonymous polling (probably EasyPoll, alternatively VoteBot or Pollmaster)
- Have at least one cross-working-group call (recorded) during the voting period for stewards to reintroduce themselves and working group members to ask questions
- Close the vote after two weeks
- If a steward is confirmed by majority vote, the steward will remain in place
- If a steward is not confirmed by majority vote, the working group discusses and votes on a new steward while the old steward remains in place for a transition period
- Each working group should coordinate whether there will be one steward or two co-stewards sharing the role
- Each working group should coordinate whether their steward applies for reelection
– If the current steward is not available for reelection, the working group should coordinate around a new candidate who will be up for election
- Every candidate should publish an application in written form in the corresponding section of their working group here on Discourse a week before the start of the elections, that is by July 25 which must include
– an intro to the person and their background
– for current stewards, a list of their accomplishments during their term
– for current non-stewards, a list of their contributions to VitaDAO and a summary why they think they are qualified and a great fit for the role of a steward
– objectives with measurable KPIs what they intend to do in the next term
- A bot for anonymous voting is implemented
- On August 1, voting starts and will be announced in #ㆍcross-wg-chat
If a steward is offboarded, does it mean he’s removed from the VitaCore and multisig as well?
Based on existing governance proposals, someone stepping down as a steward would also be offboarded from VitaCore. There isn’t specific governance on whether that person can still be a multisig signer, but the list of multisig signers is public and kept up to date here: VDP-0 VitaDAO Multisig Proposal - #26 by alexdobrin
The process is that the current multisig signers vote on adding or removing another signer based on whether they sign that transaction or not.
In practice, it depends on the reason someone is offboarded and the core contributors take a pragmatic decision together by majority vote but ideally in consent.
For instance, if a steward isn’t trusted anymore, the core contributors would probably agree to remove them from VitaCore and the multisig too.
Another example for this pragmatic decision making would be @schmackofant who stepped up to be an unofficial interim steward for tech until the elections on Aug 1. Even though he isn’t a steward yet, he was invited to vitacore because the core contributors agreed that he’s extremely valuable to the DAO and should be in VitaCore. Similarly with @catthu.
So a steward stepping down could still be in VitaCore as an advisor of the reason they stepped down was not related to performance or trust, but a lack of time or so.
Curious to hear what you and others think.
Do we need more specific governance and defined processes for the examples above? Or does it make sense to let the core contributors vote on a case by case basis in a more pragmatic manner?
I already spoke against formalizing VitaCore in March – VDP-34 Defining VitaCore. Now, barely 6 months later, VitaCore is trying to seize even more power with VDP-51. As I expected.
I would love to see any proposal that ensures that there’s a regular inclusion of new members to VitaCore and offboarding of old ones no matter how “experienced” or “valuable” the incumbent members might be. And vote as a community – via the proposed VDP-36 process or better.
I have the sense that VitaCore is on track to turning into Soviet-style Politburo.
You’re raising valid points. Since this is just an announcement and a related governance vote is taking place over here, let’s take the discussion there, shall we?