Over the past few weeks we’ve had conversations about enabling more autonomy, faster decision making, and easier access to funds, among related topics. These conversations have surfaced in forum posts & comments (3 Immediate Strategic Needs, Reaffirming Our Focus) and on public calls (3/3 Org, 3/4 Growth, 3/8 Planning).
Now, this post intends to solidify the solution we’ve rallied around as a community: using the working group (WG) model to enable more community members to take on high-impact, high-accountability, and high-autonomy work.
10x From Here promised speed as a habit. This post embodies that intention.
It nails down some of the specifics about how this works (h/t the GWG blazed the trail), with no intention of getting every detail right at the outset.
Putting this into practice will require flexibility as we learn together.
If successful, Working Groups will enable clear leaders to assume responsibility for delivering meaningful outcomes that benefit the entire Coop.
Read on for
- Core Principles
- What are Working Groups?
- How are they created?
- Next Steps
P.S. This is a lot of information at once. I’ll be certain to answer questions and discuss on calls over the next week, starting with the 3/10 Org. Call.
Core Principles 🪨
6 principles have remained front & center when thinking about doubling down on this model:
- Enable community members to gain more autonomy & accountability.
- Ensure focus on high-impact work that addresses core needs that will benefit the entire Coop community.
- Ensures that those who drive outcomes are remunerated accordingly.
- Enable a clear path to budget.
- Ensure community members are set up for success.
- Remain flexible & iterative
What are working groups?
Based largely on learnings generated from the Growth Working Group & other crypto communities (see “Addendum”), here are a some clear characteristics:
Problem-oriented: Working groups are formed to solve specific problems, or take advantage of specific opportunities, in service of the entire Coop community.
Concrete Outcomes/Measurable Results: Ahead of their creation, it is clear what they intend to accomplish for the Coop. They are responsible for producing outcomes that impact Index Coop objectives.
Big Commitment: WG leader(s) are committed to serving the entire Index Coop with the outcomes they are being paid to produce. This is for the comparatively few folks who have the time, energy, bandwidth, focus, and desire to uphold this level of commitment. WGs should have 1 directly responsible individual, and at most, 1 additional co-lead.
Time-bound: For starters, they are time-bound to a given quarter at most. We need to maximize iteration & learning.
Funding: They are approved & funded directly by the Treasury Committee (TC) after an in-the-open process.
Reporting: Leaders will be required to set KPIs and update the Coop each week on their progress. Growing the pool of shared understanding is a fundamental goal.
Continuity Commitment: WG leaders must commit to ensuring continuity of their work at the end of their specific WG’s existence.
No overlap: WG’s should not be redundant with an already operating WG.
How are they created?
To enable the Coop to quickly launch and learn, this is being kept simple, off-chain, and flexible for starters. Largely, it is making explicit steps the GWG took to create itself.
Here are the steps we’ll start with and learn from:
[Optional/Recommended] Outline to the forum for community feedback (i.e. AWG)
Initial proposal posted to forum for community feedback (Google Doc Template) - more on this below
Treasury Committee assesses (1:1 feedback + public feedback so others can learn)
Updates to initial proposal made + temperature check vote to the forum
- Forum Vote: Are you in favor of launching a [working_group_name] as described? [Y/N]
(if approved) Gnosis Multi-Sig Funded
(if approved) WG Leader(s) compensated monthly via Treasury Committee reward process
If running well, the creation process should take less than 5 business days end-to-end.
Why the Treasury Committee (TC)?
- It enables the Coop to hold individuals responsible for rapidly improving this process to the benefit of the entire Coop.
- Layering in more working groups adds complexity to the Coop. Clearly responsible individuals ensures that complexity gets managed well for the Coop.
- The TC is a short-cut to funding.
- The TC is in position to help manage funding, alignment, and objectives.
The initial proposal should make clear to any reader the answers to 3 basic questions
- Why should this working group exist?
- What will it achieve?
- How will it achieve it?
Please use this template for the Initial Proposal.
You are not alone in creating a proposal. TC members, and I’m sure other community members, will be excited to help.
In the spirit of speed as a habit, and due to the general support expressed by community members, let’s rapidly move forward with this outline for working groups.
There will be learnings as we go along, and it’ll be exciting to update the working group model as we learn together.
How DAOs become DAOs - Pet3r Pan
YAM Finance - example of time-bound work
MetaCartel - example of outcome-based work
Launching a Growth Working Group - 1st Index Coop WG