VitaDAO Ops Proposal - WG teams new members onboarding process

This is a proposal to improve the process of onboarding new team members to the Working Groups. We would like to reward members who are actively contributing to VitaDAO community by inviting them to be a part of the WG’s core team.

  1. We would like to replace the Airtable onboarding form with more informative content to explain WG’s purpose, how it works on daily basis and where we need help. Instead of a form, which could be misinterpreted and declined (as there are 2-3 people reviewing them, which are only human and can make mistakes), we will encourage members to take action and join the community right away. It means that the form will no longer be linked on VitaDAO website on landing page, nor in ‘Working Groups’ tab.

  2. On VitaDAO website, each Working Group will have a short description to invite the right people to learn more by clicking on ‘Get started’ button. Next, they are going to be redirected to the specific Working Group page where they can read the details:

  3. Each WG will have different channels for contribution. For example Awareness WG is very active in Social Media, while Technical can communicate and better understand each other through GitHub. There are 3 working groups which need a different approach due to very specific qualifications needed there, it’s Longevity, Legal and Tokenomics. For these three WGs we will create separate Airtable forms, where we gather more information about applying professionals in order to get in touch with them directly.

    All these information will be gathered, linked and embeded into the page of the given WG. We will help the WG to organize calls dedicated to gathering the info for the website.

  4. When a new member is active and contributes to the community, the Steward can invite him/her to the WG by sending the Airtable general form. When this person accepts the invite, the onboarding process will start.

  5. We would like to set up an offboarding process. We will create a list of tasks of to-dos for a handover: a final call with the team, ensuring their compensation is up-to-date, removing their privileges and removing from all calls and tools used during their service.

Big thank you to Audie, Stefano, Laurence and Paul for you time and contributions to this proposal.


Looks great! I would simply suggest also adding an offboarding proposal for those who no longer wish to be involved. Perhaps a final call with the team, thanking them for their time, ensuring their compensation is up-to-date, removing their privileges and removing from all calls.


Thank you Tyler :yellow_heart: Very good point, actually Stefano mentioned it also yesterday. I update the proposal with the next point.


How about we also allow those in the “Awareness” or “Other” categories to take action immediately, with small tasks like retweeting something or sharing what they’re most excited about, on their social media?


Yes, definitely! This is section number 3: “Each WG will have different channels for contribution. For example Awareness WG is very active in Social Media, while Technical can communicate and better understand each other through GitHub”. It means that on our website each WG will have a separate page where we guide new members on how they can contribute right here right now. As you say, on Awareness WG page we will link all social media channels and encourage to actively repost, comment and share. Thank you Laurence :sunflower:


I think this is a solid approach.

  1. Allow people to get involved immediately by joining the general community channels, and provide ‘low-hanging fruit’ tasks for them to immediately engage and contribute.
  2. Allow individuals growth into Working Groups for more structured and focused tasks.
  3. An offramp when someone wants/needs to exit the WG.

I am still curious about how to quantify contributions in working groups for compensation - has there been discussions around that?


Tracking the contributions via airtable task assessment brings along a commitment from the contributers to actively do a check up. However it does not necessarily qualify/standardize the contribution categories. If I think of an example of a researcher posting educational content in the chats this is definetely sth to consider as a contribution however one needs to really review the ongoing topics and post relevant stuff rather than random link copy pasting. Who will be in charge of setting/outlining the expected contributions ?


Regarding airtable task requiring some commitment from contributors - absolutely it will, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. So long as the expectations to contribute are clearly communicated, and that that includes tracking and updating airtable (or whatever task management tool is used).

Regarding differing contribution categories, this is a question with a lot of nuances and different approaches. There are groups like SourceCred and Coordinape who are creating frameworks to measure and reward these types of less-tangible contributions.

I suspect the direction will ultimately need to be decided after discussion among the collective.


Thank you @Alev for bringing this up! And also thanks for @beltenebros for bringing in you suggestions!

Could we have a follow up on this and outline how we could integrate


In the longevity wg call these were set as the contributions:

-Creating educational content for the rest of the DAO (both latest news/concepts in the longevity research field and the projects we are interested in)
-Contribution to the evaluation framework and/or any upcoming frameworks
-Helping the longevity deal flow, providing resources
-Participation in project evaluation

More might be listed in the future for sure. I think SourceCred can be a nice solution. Any ideas around which platform to use/how to implement the tasks ? I assume the tasks can be defined asap in the next wg calls, if other wgs haven’t done this yet. Also one thing to consider, let’s say I have doc A that I need to gather ideas on. It would be nice if I can upload this doc to the platform and run this contribution tracking there.

1 Like

I had previously discussed Sourcecred with @decentralion, the founder of Sourcecred, for a different project - could ask if he would be willing to meet with us to discuss if it would be appropriate for our purposes?