Proposal: Governance Operations Working Group

[Lavi]

@anon10525910 I can only repeat what @mel.eth already touched on above, really appreciate the constructive feedback/questions and happy to provide more insights into our thinking.

@anon10525910

@sixtykeys

This provides the Coop with Meta Governance power in protocols such as Aave, Compound and Yearn. Therefore, we need to ensure that this process is running smoothly and efficiently by enabling contributors to manage it and make improvements where needed.

Specific to metagovernance, what would the Gov Ops WG be responsible for? [this question is somewhat tied to my final question down below]

The current scope of MetaGov Ops encompasses: Maintaining a backlog (spreadsheet), monitoring and announcing votes via Twitter and Discord, setting-up reminders to execute votes, follow-up’s, coordinating any potential issues, and generally raising awareness in calls/Discord.
However, with the new MGC election process (forum post here), an additional recurring process will have to be established and maintained (if accepted). In my view, this would also fall under the GOWG. In summary, the responsibilities of the GOWG regarding MetaGov are “Operational support to MetaGov votes and the MGC”. This includes building out, maintaining and improving said processes, as well as potential future processes related to MetaGov.
Moreover, I’d imagine that this WG will also lead other initiatives and work out strategical proposals around MetaGov that go beyond process improvements. However, in the beginning the focus will be on existing and upcoming processes.

@anon10525910

@sixtykeys

We have budgeted for $10,000 per month (This is under the expectation of 2 or 3 additional contributors to this working group during Q4).

What sort of responsibilities do you expect additional contributors to take on?

I’d also like to mention that @oneski22 has expressed interest to support this WG in a strategical advisor role, which would be a big value-add. And as @mel.eth mentioned, we also hope to on-board new contributors.

@anon10525910

Noting my current understanding of the MGC situation in case it is wrong:

• IIP-51 expires on October 8th (3 months after the Snapshot vote, per the IIP)
• The $7,500 per month of stipends for the MGC members will also end
• Unless there is a replacement IIP

Yes that is correct, and there is a new IIP covering this topic. As mentioned above, this will also cover the election process and funding going forward.

@anon10525910

• to confirm, we (the Coop) should consider a potential Gov Ops WG & any future MGC as separate enmities with separate mandates. Correct?
• What sort of operational support might this WG provide a future MGC?

That is correct, MGC and GOWG are two separate entities, with separate funding. Members of the MGC will be subject to regular elections and seats are open to anybody (also outside core-contributors). This does not exclude GOWG-contributors to become members of the MGC, on the contrary, my experience so far was that it’s actually quite efficient to be on the MGC and do MGC Ops simultaneously, as there is less friction/communication required.
Regarding operational support, I hope I was able to answer this question sufficiently above. Please let us know if something is still unclear. Thanks again for taking this role and increasing clarity around this proposal!