Secured
Hello folks,
The Guide elections have come and went, and thankfully there were no applicants. I am hereby proposing we discuss and form a Governance working group to replace some of the responsibilities of the Guide role that's being phased out, while providing a clear direction forward.
As per Doc 006, a working group can arise if the community can be interpreted to respond positively in this topic. This topic is here to have people respond positively or negatively to this idea, discuss what it should or shouldn't be, and for members to vocalize their intent to join.
The rationale:
Discussion on how to move forward with governance is currently taking place in multiple topics.
1. It's slow.
2. It lacks direction.
3. The input seems to only come from a handful of people anyway.
It's imperative that we come out stronger if we change our governance, and not have people feel we're almost rudderless. Considering that, and these three points, a Working Group with defined goals makes most sense to me. This adds possible timelines and therefore urgency, it provides direction and it fosters the momentum of engaged protocol members in a more efficient environment.
Possible goals/responsibilities:
1. Facilitate and improve governance.
2. Perform concurrent work on a full proposal to introduce a new Standing Party. There's a lot of overlap between what people want. Let's get a dedicated group on this.
Essentially, what the WG would be doing is actively drive governance as a focused group until such a time comes it's no longer felt as needed.
Sidenotes:
1. Obviously, as is customary, work is unpaid.
2. I'd like to cap membership to 5 slots.
The Guide elections have come and went, and thankfully there were no applicants. I am hereby proposing we discuss and form a Governance working group to replace some of the responsibilities of the Guide role that's being phased out, while providing a clear direction forward.
As per Doc 006, a working group can arise if the community can be interpreted to respond positively in this topic. This topic is here to have people respond positively or negatively to this idea, discuss what it should or shouldn't be, and for members to vocalize their intent to join.
The rationale:
Discussion on how to move forward with governance is currently taking place in multiple topics.
1. It's slow.
2. It lacks direction.
3. The input seems to only come from a handful of people anyway.
It's imperative that we come out stronger if we change our governance, and not have people feel we're almost rudderless. Considering that, and these three points, a Working Group with defined goals makes most sense to me. This adds possible timelines and therefore urgency, it provides direction and it fosters the momentum of engaged protocol members in a more efficient environment.
Possible goals/responsibilities:
1. Facilitate and improve governance.
2. Perform concurrent work on a full proposal to introduce a new Standing Party. There's a lot of overlap between what people want. Let's get a dedicated group on this.
Essentially, what the WG would be doing is actively drive governance as a focused group until such a time comes it's no longer felt as needed.
Sidenotes:
1. Obviously, as is customary, work is unpaid.
2. I'd like to cap membership to 5 slots.
