VDP-36 Stewardship Process Amendment #1

[alphazwest]

@theobtl

That is probably a legitimate concern. However, I wonder: Does it matter if we assume that the following steps of the process would prevent any of such malicious activities? If neither VitaCore challenges the motivation nor the working group members vote against the nomination, wouldn’t the nomination probably be rightful and reasonable then?

I think you are spot-on in assuming that other checkpoints would effectively supersede any issues this would cause. I think simple is definitely better.

[longevion]

I’ve asked Token Engineering Commons for feedback on this since the original process was inspired from theirs.

Livia’s input:

we don’t open this process for the whole community. We’ve had arguments for both, but the rationale to have this closed to the stewards group is that they have the most insight in the community and also on the role of steward to bring a new person in. Also it doesn’t open for bigger conflicts. It’s sensitive to have an open nomination where the community could vote someone down and affect this person sense of belonging.

also, we have community stewards that aren’t stewards of a working group - they are just stewarding the community in their particular way that is also valuable. We also have working group leads that are not community stewards. Separating this two roles was important for our organization and understanding of responsibilities

See more here: Community Stewards Working Group Manifesto - Google Docs

I think it makes sense to discuss pros and cons around taking things “public” by default, instead of just allowing anyone to make a public proposal, like “appeal to a higher court if you disagree with the private group’s decision”.

But I think it’s definitely an improvement if there’s a dispute resolution process when there’s disagreement. With appropriate escalation as needed.

[longevion]

Trying to summarize the various stewardship appointment mechanics proposed in the comments above, I notice it’d be useful to have a resolution on what the dispute resolution process is VDP-37 VitaDAO Governance Amendment #2

[theobtl]

Thanks for reaching out again to TEC! Livia argues that the stewards group has the most insight in the community which is why they keep nominations to that circle. We’ve discussed the same initially but my impression was that we found that our working group members are usually sufficiently vetted and involved to be qualified to make nominations, especially if we require three working group members for one nomination. Also, VitaCore can still object (step 2) and vote against (step 3).

Rather than changing step 1 from “Any three working group members or any steward” back to just “Any steward”, we could also define steps 1-3 as being private to VitaCore, while steps 4-5 would be public. Meaning, three any working group members could nominate a new steward privately to VitaCore. If a majority of VitaCore supports the nomination (step 3), the nomination would be made public in #cross-wg-chat. Would that be an appropriate compromise?

@longevion

Trying to summarize the various stewardship appointment mechanics proposed in the comments above, I notice it’d be useful to have a resolution on what the dispute resolution process is VDP-37 VitaDAO Governance Amendment #2

The latest (and significantly revised) Dispute Resolution Process proposal will be published here in the next hours. Is there anything else that requires this Stewardship Process proposal to be updated?

[longevion]

Agree on keeping steps 1-3 private.

I think we should aim for consensus instead of majority rule. If VitaCore members have big reservations about a nominee, they can trigger a dispute resolution process (which seems worthwhile, to keep harmony in the group).

[theobtl]

@longevion

Agree on keeping steps 1-3 private.

I’m updating the proposal to include that. If that is the last change, we can move forward to the Snapshot vote in seven days.
Edit: Of course this proposal is dependent on the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) so we will move both proposals to Snapshot at the same time. The DRP has been substantially revised and will also be up for discussion on Discourse for at least seven more days once its up.

@longevion

I think we should aim for consensus instead of majority rule. If VitaCore members have big reservations about a nominee, they can trigger a dispute resolution process (which seems worthwhile, to keep harmony in the group).

This is certainly a valid perspective. We’ve discussed this a few times already and it seems controversial, so I’m not including it in the proposal right away but would put it up for discussion again. @Savva argued for a majority vote, I do too, @audieleon argued for a majority vote only for votes against the wg member’s vote (which is irrelevant in the current draft where the order was been changed and wg members vote after VitaCore).

You’re mentioning the Dispute Resolution Process and that any VitaCore member can trigger that through a challenge in step 2. This should ensure that we would ever only get to step 3 if there are no significant and substantial doubts about the candidate. There may still be less significant reasons that someone would vote against a nominee - should this lead to a cancellation of the nomination? The whole point of step 2 is to filter out legitimate and substantial reasons from onboarding a new steward and distinguish them from other concerns that should not stop a nomination.

With the Dispute Resolution Process in place in step 2, shouldn’t step 3 therefore come with a majority vote?

[theobtl]

@theobtl

this proposal is dependent on the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) so we will move both proposals to Snapshot at the same time.

The Dispute Resolution Process has just been published as VDP-44:

VDP-44 Dispute Resolution Process

Summary This proposal introduces a Dispute Resolution Process to systematically prevent and resolve any tensions and conflicts. The process consists of escalating steps from Conciliation to Mediation to an internal VitaDAO Arbitral Tribunal and, finally, to online Third-Party Arbitration with enforceability of awards through VitaDAO. It is open to all members of VitaDAO to resolve disputes, including violations of VitaDAO’s Code of Conduct. In the event that a matter may be of a criminal nature…

This means that this proposal, VDP-36, may move on to phase 3 on Snapshot anytime from in seven days when VDP-44 has completed its seven-day phase 2 period without significant changes.

Last call for feedback: If anyone feels strongly about any further changes to this proposal, VDP-44, please voice your suggestion here as soon as possible so that we can move forward in a timely manner.

[alexdobrin]

I suggest replacing working group members with VitaCORE in the following options

Option A
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.

Option B
In a vote optionally occurring at any time, 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.

[theobtl]

FYI, there’s now a counter proposal to this proposal: VDP-52 stewards election proposal options

[theobtl]

Cross-posting my comment from VDP-51 Stewardship election [counter proposal] - #15 by theobtl here for reference. I’d suggest to update this proposal accordingly:

Before:

3. If the nomination receives support from a majority of VitaCore members, the nomination is shared publicly in the Discord channel #cross-wg-chat where members of all working groups vote on the nomination.
4. If a majority of votes is in agreement, the nominated steward is offered the position.

After:

3. If the nomination receives support from a majority of VitaCore members, the nomination is shared publicly in the Discord channel #cross-wg-chat where members of all working groups participate in the voting process on the nomination.
   – Anyone who has the corresponding working group’s “Member” Discord role has five votes.
   – Anyone who has the corresponding working group’s “Guest” Discord role has a single vote.
   – Anyone who has a “Member” or Guest" Discord role in any working group, but not in the corresponding working group, does not have a vote but has the right to receive a public response to questions and suggestions.
4. If a majority of votes is in agreement, the nominated steward is offered the position.

If there’s no objection until next week, I’ll update the proposal with this change.