Community-driven DAOs: Next Steps

[chronear]

Appreciate you sharing your feedback! Happy to address it.

@satojandro

how seriously should we take the current proposal given it is likely to (fail) and be changed sooner than it takes to actually digest all the changes. Worse, this is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy - new policies and procedures are more likely to fail because community members simply stop taking the NF seriously.

I am not sure what is the reasoning behind these premature assumptions. You are well aware that the NEAR Foundation is not an overarching governing body. That being said, no one process is perfect and governance is a continuous experiment. Please note that this document is a set of recommendations not mandates. We cannot forecast the outcomes of our Governance Pilot without starting it and we are confident that the community will welcome and actively participate in such community-driven experiments that aim to establish better governance models.

@satojandro

the fact that this monolithic treaties are being drafted behind closed doors and handed down without any type of consultation or input is disturbing.

I will respectfully voice my opposition against this accusatory statement and would like to point you towards the original post by @Grace where we called for suggestions. The post ended with a CTA. Sufficient time was allowed and all community members were invited to share their feedback. We received invaluable suggestions from our community members which formed the basis for this document.

We can’t address your opinions on “Swiss Foundations” since it is firstly outside the scope of this thread and are again, assumptions. Would however be happy to assist you with resources that help define different types of Associations.

The 7/9 threshold to pass a proposal is a recommendation if the community opts to go by the originally proposed (1:3) Council structure. Please refer to the discussion below the draft proposal post for context. We’ve also suggested an alternate Council composition keeping in mind the best interests of all our stakeholders.

@satojandro

The only way I see this would make sense is if the Foundation hires new teams to dedicate primarily to being DAO members.

This is contradictory to our collective mission as an ecosystem. We are in the process of removing NEAR Foundation members from DAO Councils and this suggestion goes completely against our decentralization efforts.

@satojandro

we should consider scrapping the ‘DAOs - Decentralise Autonomous Organisation’ altogether

We believe that DAOs play a pivotal role in building the decentralised future we collectively aim for. DAOs are powerful vehicles of social change and we remain committed to building support for their adoption in a legally compliant way.

Thank you for sharing your experience as a DAO Council member, these discussions are extremely valuable and bolster our faith in supporting a diverse range of opinions.

@satojandro

** Proposal: extending the tenure of Council roles to six months, with the option to renew. Maximum two terms.*

I am unsure of what “maximum two terms” means in this context. Are you suggesting an individual serve only a maximum of two tenures in the entire life-cycle of their contribution to the NEAR ecosystem? We understand your thoughts about a 3-month tenure but that is recommended keeping in mind our values of providing equal participation opportunities to everyone.

@satojandro

I really do hope I do not come across as antagonistic, I am just increasingly frustrated that everything the community is achieving through BUILDING the NF continues to undermine through bureaucracy.

I would like to assure you that no one considers this antagonistic. We are grateful to you for sharing your opinions quite vocally. I would like to reiterate that NEAR Foundation is not an administrative body and we will never advocate for bureaucracy to impede the growth of our truly diverse, passionate and inclusive ecosystem.

We look forward to hearing from you as we announce Open Calls next week!