Both proposals certainly have strong points speaking for them. Overall, I still tend to prefer VDP-36 over VDP-51 because I’m of the opinion that we should not disempower working group members and give even more governance power to VitaCore which already has too much influence and too little oversight.
IMO, our working group members are the brains and the future of VitaDAO. VDP-36 sounds like it would benefit the incumbents (which also includes me as steward and core) in the short term but potentially harm the DAO in the long term. We shouldn’t optimise for efficiency in the short-term.
In order to deliver and make our mission a reality, we need to empower our community to be able to grow into leaders, stewards and core, rather than core selecting itself (hopefully not like the Emperor dynasty in Foundation ).
There are few places where even part time contributors and new members are so empowered as in VitaDAO.
Recall stewards and challenge their leadership
Apply to become VitaCore
Sit in important meetings, even as newly joined guest
Quickly take on a lead role (if able) and get full compensation
Make fully valid governance proposals
participate in fully recognized on-chain votes
Having working group members try to evaluate specialized steward roles, puts them in a difficult spot.
How should a molecular biologist phd, doing part time work at vitadao, evaluate a web3 token-economics steward?
How should a marketing specialist working in the newsletter team evaluate a biotech dealflow steward?
How should a part-time web3 developer from the tech working group evaluate a steward for the legal working group?
We would need to do a lot more initial vetting for wg members, given this responsibility. They would also need to become accountable to token holders and put themselves out there.
Working group members have a really low barrier to entry and can (given their skill and attitude) go very quickly from part time bounty hunter to fully paid member, they can join VitaCore if they are mission aligned and also stand for Steward election.
This proposal is also about keeping the working group access open
If we need to apply the same scrutiny in terms of mission alignment to the WG members as we do with Vita Core, then we’d slow down new entrants and essentially limit access
It would also require to make them accountable to the token holders, which again, would put them under a lot more scrutiny
I think the much more accessible contribution experience we currently have, which allows new members to try things out, see where they fit in.
Looking at the new poll format as of earlier today, I’m realizing that we’re missing an important option: A „no“ in the sense of „make no changes“. This is how every governance proposal in VitaDAO so far was set up and a best practice in other DAOs too, e.g. GnosisDAO.
If we don’t do that, I’m not sure that the results would be meaningful because it would be impossible to know who is against a change. The only option currently is to vote „yes“ on one or more options (which btw is also something we’ve never had before and introduced the paradox that you can vote for the proposal and the counter proposal at the same time).
Since you can only vote for, but not against something, it is certain that this proposal is going to pass in some way or the other. This doesn’t make sense IMO, there must be an option for any proposal that it does not pass and the DAO has the option to vote for „making no changes“.
We’ve never defined that, neither that a VDP can overrule an earlier VDP, nor that it cannot. I’ve always found it to be reasonable to assume that a VDP can in fact overrule an earlier VDP - otherwise VitaDAO would be stuck forever with whatever the DAO thought was right at the time, but I’m certain that we’ll change and optimize the governance a lot over the coming months and years.
That is still a very good idea, I think. It looks like we’ll follow up with some quite fundamental changes to our overall governance, given the recent sentiment in some groups. This amendment should then also be a part of that.
Since @alexdobrin asked about when we’ll move this proposal to Snapshot, I’ll say this here for the record:
Given that the last significant change of the proposal was done by @longevion around Jul 16, 10:59 AM CEST, the earliest time this proposal could move on to phase 3 on Snapshot is seven days later, so Jul 23, 10:59 AM. Unless we’ll change it again before that.
Let me be crystal clear here. The VitaCore is not optimal at the moment. If few people had joined the DAO earlier than others and have managed to proclaim themselves as the Core, it doesn’t mean they’re any good. We really need to put the current stewards up to a vote. Otherwise, it’s just a takeover of power.
That said, based on our current governance framework as defined in VDP-1 VitaDAO Governance Framework and subsequent amendments, I believe there everyone has the right to propose another VDP that changes these rules.
While I personally would prefer to stick to VDP-19, we’ll have to see how this proposal develops and, if it passes snapshot before August 1, see what this means.
For me it is out of question that we need to fundamentally revisit the construct of VitaCore, the roles of stewards and how all of these roles and authorities are always held accountable to the DAO, act transparently and subject to change by the preferences of the DAO.