@anon10525910 really appreciate the thorough run-through here and the opportunity to provide a little more insight into how we see this WG benefitting the community. @Lavi has some specific insight on the MGC and I’ll defer those responses to him. I’ll run through the other questions and concerns here:
That’s the idea, yes. As it stands, when an election is run it is typically @Pepperoni_Joe facilitating that process with the help of the POC WG crew. This WGL would absorb those duties and continue to make sure that elections are being communicated and run in a fair and transparent manner. While the current process is probably fine given that elections are rare, it is not within the currently stated remit of the POC WG. We’re looking to document the process, provide an avenue for feedback and improvement, and facilitate the process when the need is there.
I realize this is a broad question, but I would like to highlight that we’re already seeing differentiation by proposal type (product and WG proposals being a great example). As proposed however, this WG would be an operations function mainly, focused on facilitating the current processes, capturing efficiencies, and communicating (proactively and retrospectively). Additionally we will endeavor to remain apprised of best practices and governance innovations, present same to the community, and help to promote an environment of open discussion around governance topics.
In its initial form it would look like a tracking spreadsheet maintained by the WG and reminders/questions being asked directly in the forum, as well as running through open IIPs requiring implementation on the Weekly Planning and Leadership Forum calls. Ideally after a few weeks we’ll be well-ahead of the Q&A process for those calls and will be reporting on successful IIP implementations.
Reporting within the Weekly and Leadership meetings is planned. Tracking currently rests with the performing contributors but is not made available for review by the community and we’d like to bring more visibility to the tracking itself (meaning anyone can check on the status of an IIP without having to ask, which is the current process). Additional reporting would include standardizing the various ‘blasts’ that alert the community to upcoming and live votes, formalizing the weekly communication around upcoming votes, and after-action reporting (more immediately below).
The intention here is to provide reliable feedback to the community around (a hopefully dwindling number of) governance-related failures. Examples would include quorum-misses and the recent UNI-delegation proposal (I’ll note that a post-mortem of sorts was done on this). The idea being that understanding what isn’t going well will help inform future process improvements and ensure community awareness.
A portion of the budget is to compensate @Mringz as a core contributor. The remainder will be used to compensate contributors similarly to the guidance that’s been posted relating to Governance Reps currently. We have a goal of training at least 2 additional contributors in the IIP editor and snapshot process as there are currently only 3 contributors active in this regard. We would encourage and look to reward contribution primarily in those areas, the communication/reporting areas, and anyone that is producing good content around the voting and governance process. Otherwise, if contributors have actionable ideas that align with the goals of this (or any) WG, we would encourage discussing them with the appropriate leads to determine the best course of remunerable action.
Yes. The MGC is an elected committee that votes in lieu of a quorum-miss on Meta-Governance proposals and with the exception of @Lavi do not attend to the operational aspects of running Meta-Governance votes on the IC-side (posting to snapshot etc.: @lavi) or voting in the native protocol (DPI Multi-Sig via IIP-49: no overlap with MGC currently).
Again, noting that @Lavi will be jumping in tomorrow to address the MGC related questions, but the intent here is to support the process as it exists now and any future iterations. Given the similarity between the Meta-Governance and Governance processes there are efficiencies to be gained by extending applicable Governance process improvements to Meta-Governance. That said, the MGC was created and funded via an IIP, so while we would like to help make that committee as effective as possible there is no proposed change to the MGC or its funding source. For anyone new looking to build context on the Meta-Governance process at IC, please find the process outlined here.
Really appreciate the opportunity to provide some more clarification and if any of the responses aren’t sufficient just let us know. Also really appreciate how quickly you grabbed your Funding Council hat (metafactory?) to provide a review in that capacity.