‘Community Governance’ is a fallacy. I’ve been very vocal about this on the Ref Community DAO calls.
‘Community Governance’ without frameworks and processes in place devolves into chaos, and worse, something coming close to it’s nasty predecessor: Communism. Opportunists who contribute nothing thinking they are entitled to hold the people doing the real work to unreasonable standards, without proper remuneration, and then take away all the upside.
Dacha is an example of how easy it is to feel empowered by a poorly defined term.
A lesser known community member asking legitimate questions (communication may not always be the best) and providing feedback (we are constantly improving) is welcomed. But an outsider coming in guns blazing to successfully disrupt everyone’s day, sow discontent and chaos, destroy people’s reputation and even successfully manage to expel one of our most valuable assets is a tragedy and must be avoided.
What constitutes a community member? To me the beauty of crypto and blockchain is that no one is forced to be here, we all opt into ecosystems where we see potential, think we can add value, etc. There are two major implications of an opt-in system:
-
When people choose to opt-in, they are agreeing to a certain set of values and principles, which ought to include appropriate ways to raise opposing views, propose feedback, etc. (I do not believing in censoring opposing views).
-
Right to Exclude. The logical next step of allowing anyone to join voluntarily is the need to be able to exclude toxic people: no one member has the right to force their bullshit on others, holding them back and dragging everyone down.
A few notes on the right to exclude:
- There is a difference between excluding someone from a community working group and excluding them from the use technology.
-
NEAR (platform) is decentralised, Dacha could be building something amazing and neither would we know or care. No one can stop him/her from enjoying the benefits of the public infrastructure that is being built.
-
Our working groups are ‘centralised’. Centralisation is not a dirty word in this context. It simply means that someone must show up everyday to do the work. We must make sure these groups remain functional, must work on civilised ways of dealing with disagreements (it would look as the exact opposite as Dacha’s thread).
I expressed some concerns (privately) about Near moving too fast towards the community treasury model, which I predict will get ransacked by mobs of the likes of Dacha, who unironically claim to want transparency and accountability as they embark on a crusade to destroy everything on his way for personal gain.
In our ongoing pursuit to define functional frameworks for Community Governance, I would like to propose two fundamental pillars:
-
Open pathways to leadership. Let anyone show up, present ideas, be eligible for funding, encourage experimentation and accept failure is an inevitable part of the innovation and learning cycles.
-
Strong leadership. As people show up and step up to the challenge of steering this ecosystem to the next level, WE MUST EMPOWER THEM. Once a budget has been approved, give them the freedom to execute the best way they can. Petty fights like this one for a few Near that has been well established were approved are unnecessary.
This is in stark contrast with making community leaders subject to Struggle Sessions where anonymous ‘community members’ take turns on making insane claims. We won’t have any community members left within weeks if this is allowed to run wild.
A brilliant lesson from the first CTO for Estonia that I had the pleasure to meet: ‘after politicians have decided to build the bridge, they get out of the way and let the engineers build it. Politicians do not have a say on the structural design, etc. Engineers assume the full scope and responsibility of delivering what has already been decided. You must trust their expertise’.
If community members want to be more actively involved with Community Spending: show up to the myriad AMAs, Ecosystem hangouts, governance forum posts, town halls, etc. and provide feedback at the relevant and appropriate time. Get involved with the Guilds you think are underperforming and help them improve, etc. Help us build and evolve rather than set everything on fire.
I applaud the leadership of @erik.near @Grace @ross for bringing some common sense into this thread and expressing support for community members.
