Wow, lot of interesting points and lots of surprising and not-so surprising initial reactions to the HoG idea. Here’s my perspective on a couple themes raised followed by some thoughts on guilds/guild program in general for consideration.
Point 1 - On Dictators and Leaders
Perhaps dictator wasn’t the best choice of terms; however if we take an objective approach and put aside whatever cultural and experiential baggage is attached to it, then it provides more relevant context here “benevolent dictator - an authoritarian leader who exercises absolute power but is perceived to do so with regard for benefit of the population as a whole.”
Hopefully everyone can achieve some common ground and rally around what I personally consider to be fact - that @erik.near and others that might be involved in this initiative or others have nothing but the best intentions and desire to see the guilds program and all the guilds in it succeed if they are providing value to the ecosystem.
Second point I want to make here is that I don’t care how decentralized a community gets, it’s going to require leadership. That leadership will emerge regardless of how formal a system is put in place to elect, appoint, or otherwise signal a willingness to follow someone into battle. In the beginning, it is hugely beneficial to have one or a few people with a deep understanding and experience with all facets of a system setting the initial course. It gets things going and it’s the way every initiative happens - including the Community DAO referenced several times as the “solution” to all of this. So, in this respect, @blaze is correct in identifying this “benevolent dictator concept” as a transitional appointment.
Quite frankly, as guild leaders, we are lucky to have people like @erik.near and @jlwaugh and others who are willing to run with these experiments in an effort to improve guild coordination, funding, and so on. If people like them hadn’t stepped up to establish the guilds program in the first place, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion now.
Point 1 Key Takeaways: We all have limitations/strengths, let’s be smart enough to recognize when people have good intentions and value people for what they bring to the table. Leadership inside a community is not a bad thing - it’s a necessary thing and it’s going to show up in some form regardless of the system being used.
Point 2: On Decentralization and Experimentation
I find it amusing or ironical that several reactions focus on how this initiative goes against concepts of self-driven community and decentralization, but then immediately refer to centralizing all operations in a community DAO, or seeing the issuance of various standards for how groups should be setup or operate, or seeing polls posted that are so clearly biased that any result is completely meaningless regardless of the turnout. How about we all be careful about suggesting there is one way to do things and instead focus on facilitating growth in many different ways across many different initiatives and platforms?
There have been many of these types of experiments since the inception of the guilds program (and I know that’s part of the issue) - but let’s consider the benefits of running them instead of focusing on the downsides of yet another change. Every time, good or bad, we learn something We can do a much better job of keeping track of what the lessons learned are so as not to repeat them (seen some of that too), but in general, do not recommend shying away from experimentation.
Enabling experimentation also means being agile enough as a community to run them. So yes, one could try and plan out in detail how this might go and conduct months and months or even years of consultations with every stakeholder to try and make something that pleases everyone, but guess what - that will fail too. It will just take longer to do it and it will therefore take longer to get to what is working.
So, to everyone of you that doesn’t like the HoG concept, or has another suggestion for doing things - why don’t you run your own experiment? At the end of the day, we’ll either have a whole bunch of failed experiments, or a bunch of prosperous community ecosystems running inside the larger NEAR community, or more likely a combination of both. Pretty sure most who have been around for long enough will agree with me when I say that if you have an idea for how to better things, run a community, build a project, or something else - the support from NEAR, the community, the foundation is there if you put the work in to put together a real plan with objectives and value expectations and earn the trust that some seem to think should be granted automatically simply by creating a near account.
Point 2 Key Takeaways: Doubtful there is any such thing as a truly decentralized community. There is no one right way. Experiment lots, fail lots, learn, and improve with each iteration. Agility is important to facilitate innovation.
Point 3 - On Value
Behind everything pertaining to funding is an inherent desire to measure the contribution or value of a guild. I believe that to be a responsible approach to take. It’s problematic though when we compare guilds as discussed in that link above. Rightfully so, guilds should operate in a transparent manner, but before anyone starts pointing fingers or questioning value, they better be very aware of what the guild’s value streams and contributions to the ecosystem actually are. Those metrics need to be designed/agree on collaboratively between the guild and what I would suggest is something akin to an audit/review committee (mentioned more below). No two guilds are the same. Each has unique objectives. Each brings value to the ecosystem in a different way and it’s not always easily observed/measured.
Point 3 Key Takeaways - operate transparently, realize that no two guilds are the same, understand a guild and its objectives before assuming the worst.
On Guilds and the Guild Program
Many of us have had many discussions and opined on guilds and the guilds program since it was put in place. Throughout that time, I see consistent themes that still are not addressed and they all revolve around fundamental process/structure as @frnvpr rightly points out. Address them once and for all and it would go a long way to enabling guilds to follow their own paths in generating measurable and recognized value for the ecosystem:
-
the strategic framework isn’t explicitly laid out or understood by all guild leaders. That puts the onus on guild leaders to interpret their role including deciphering norms and expectations. It’s about supplying well-defined intent and then trusting people to understand work towards achieving that intent within whatever constraints/limitations exist (mission command).
-
the funding structure is constantly in flux, something HoG is experimenting in rectifying, just as community DAO is experimenting in rectifying through another approach. I’m of the opinion, expressed several times that a budget-based system that a guild can rely on for a set period of time, reviewed periodically, and linked to measurable/demonstrable value is a preferred approach. Project based grants and funding do not take into account the role a guild leader or other staff involved in keeping it running put into it. I’d say the majority of us are going to do it regardless of compensation, but if we can give leaders the ability to devote more time and focus to their guild, then I think the benefits will be seen through better organization, better reporting, and higher guild value in the long-term. Periodic budgets also don’t preclude the guild from coming up with plans and applying for/receiving funding for special projects that are actual projects (have a start/end date and expected deliverables).
-
audit/review structure is missing. Part of setting expectations means being very clear about what a guild must provide or how it must behave inside the ecosystem, but it needs to be done carefully so as not to introduce bureaucratic process (producing something just for the sake of the process). It’s basically about measuring the value of a guild in the ecosystem and that value proposition is different for every single guild. I’ve written about the dangers of comparing guilds before here on the forum. Each needs to be looked at individually and measured against objectives they set for themselves while also aligning and measuring the value associated with achieving those objectives to the ecosystem/community.
-
operations and training - Some structure in the guilds program is good and desirable and this is the one area where it is essential in order to level the playing field and ensure all guilds start from the same point. I believe it would be an interesting experiment to produce a “Guild Leader’s Course” that basically teaches guild leaders how to run guilds in the NEAR ecosystem. Please don’t interpret that wrong - I’m not saying it should teach one way to run and build a guild, I’m saying it can enlighten guild leaders to many of the ambiguities, values, beliefs, norms, and expectations that currently exist in a more structured way to provide the framework within which a guild operates. It could then serve as the repository of lessons learned over time, getting updated as results from the various experiments are realized. While it would not restrict guild leaders from running and growing their guilds in a certain way, it could provide a pathway for more guild leaders who have vision/passion but no idea of how to run a community/organization with an aide-memoire to follow to get things going. Onboarding of guild leaders is something Vital Point AI is looking to help with, and the on chain guilds platform is working to give guild leaders some basic/common management tools to help grow their communities in whatever manner they choose to do so.
In Summary
I’m sure I’m missing thoughts, but will sum up by saying I agree with a lot that is in this thread and disagree with a lot as well - and that should be ok. I’m pretty confident that whether it’s the HoG experiment, Community DAO, or the next bright idea - we’re going in the right direction.
There’s a lot of smart and intelligent people providing excellent advice and recommendations, but at some point we just need to do things and see how they turn out, take the feedback and adjust. And, of course, we don’t just have to do one thing - do lots.
And above all, it pains me when I see people disrespecting the values/experiences of others even if its not overt. The micro-aggressions cut just as deep. Let’s remember to be kind, patient and respectful towards one another, remaining open and inherently aware that we each have perspectives from backgrounds and experiences that give us unique ways of looking at things and add value from the diversity of thought. It’s when we think our way is the only way or are not open to seeing things from other’s perspectives that we end up creating toxicity and a community none of us will want to be a part of.
Finally, I’ll shut up by providing this which is what I hope could be the start of a discussion about the universal principles that we’d all agree are important for guild leaders to operate under. Thanks for reading.
Cheers.