@Matthew_Graham - please recuse yourself from the discussion within the Index Council given you are, imo, acting in bad faith currently by misrepresenting the standing of your proposed subDAO broadly . Cease doing so for the good of The Coop until we can establish how the two entities interact.
Let me make a tactful recommendation. The Index Council has a lot on its plate and I’m concerned this wouldn’t get the priority it deserves. Could Gov Nest make a recommendation on the process for creating a subDAO? Or present some options? The Council could then review and approve. It would save everyone a lot of effort. Alternatively, the Alt Gov workstream could draft a proposal for review and approval by Gov Nest and then Council.
I appreciate the attempt at inspiring fast action here - and yes there are plenty frameworks for establishing subDAOs; this isn’t new territory, just new territory for Index Coop.
My mandate within Governance Nest can be found here. It relates mostly to running established processes and inspiring the use of metagovernance. Unfortunately, according to the scoping of roles, this does not fall within my remit and I cannot dedicate the time to this that it deserves as a proposer without tapping into some contributor resources.
Given that there is a council designed to delegate out new remits, I’m calling the council to do so. If the council delegates scoping subDAO inclusion to my nest we will execute, but as it stands this proposal and subsequent noise has been me acting as a concerned contributor providing challenge in the face of what I perceive to be and inordinate amount of influence leaving the organization in a very poorly defined way. As nest lead I’ll execute on the remit as it stands and run the established processes, but as of now there is no process in place.
To say that the council is too busy @JosephKnecht is simply unacceptable - the council has almost no responsibility outside of delegating matters such as this; I’ll not be taking this over without the process in place being utilized. If the council wants to take a quick vote and tell me to do this, fine, but otherwise I risk spinning my wheels and wasting coop resources to do so.
As it stands we run all INDEX and ad-hoc token voting and network growth and participation related to same. Responsible subDAO formation is a process we’re well equipped to scope, establish, and manage. The issue here is that any work I/we put into developing a process will be waste if we handwave in GH as is currently happening here.
I’d suggested the process of scoping the spec for this 9-days ago and the proposer (@Matthew_Graham; also sits on the Index Council) has been unresponsive; instead choosing backdoor this institution into The Coop and otherwise misrepresenting the relationship to Index Coop throughout the ecosystem we’re looking form trusted relationships with. I’m am so deeply disappointed by the current approach and my own DAO for behaving in this way. It’s not something I feel I can prevent, but it reflects poorly on all of us, imo.
Hi @mel.eth , just confirming that I’ve seen the tag and this is on the ICC agenda.
I believe there is a community call on 4/13 on this topic that should provide time for feedback on the issue – encourage all to attend and make your perspectives heard!
This is also a good opportunity to remind ourselves of our guiding principles: especially working together towards shared goals and interacting with empathy. On a personal note, I’d encourage all to assume positive intent and collaborate/communicate directly to find the best path forward.
I look forward to more discussion on this topic as it is new for the Coop. Accusatory language isn’t necessary and hope we can all have level heads as we discuss both short-term actions and long-term goals.
If this process takes too long I hope we can come to a compromise for a temporary delegation. Our ecosystem partners, many of which we build products on top of, rely on us to foster growth.
Any plan by The Index Council to expeditiously correct the false information in the ecosystem? As a precedent, drawing a connection between personal endeavors and IC when none exists (in the eyes of the DAO) is setting partners up for disappointment (potentially with financial impacts). This is not positive-sum and will have negative governance impacts. Effectively, having a high-context contributor/council-member making false statements on other governance forums is a huge problem I’d like the council to address now, not 5-days from now.
If the council is not inclined to take action I will be looking to make it explicit to partner DAOs as my name is on as Governance Nest Lead and I’ll be the lightening rod for all governance failures. Absent direction from council I’ll be considering this action hostile to the Index Coop DAO and acting accordingly; I can no longer watch this non-Coop entity gain influence under false pretenses and defer to your inaction as a council.
In the interest of full transparency, wanted to note that I’m recusing myself from future council discussion on this topic due to a potential overlap/COI with my full time job at Flipside Crypto. This is out of an abundance of caution to keep faith in the council — nothing currently active or underway. Thanks!
I think this will make the whole nest structure redundant. Even if it has to be considered it should be initially tried and tested for the Governance nest and Finance Nest for achieving greater operational efficiency.
subDAO should only be task-driven and not purpose driven.