---
# System prepended metadata

title: DAOhaus Buddy System as a Response to DH Org Management Structures
tags: [Buddy System]

---

---
###### tags: `Buddy System`
---
# DAOhaus Buddy System as a Response to DH Org Management Structures
JP, E2T, TW - April 13, 2022

### Initial Complaints

- The ones doing much of the work are (seemingly) the ones opposed to increasing the hierarchical structure. (Is this conjecture?)
- These solutions point towards identifying the wrong problem.
    - What is the problem Holacracy is trying to solve?
    - What is the problem Rangers 2.0 is trying to solve?
- One of the problems is a tendency to identify solutions before aligning on problems. It would be helpful to gather ideas on how we can bake prioritization of problems into our culture before jumping to solutions.

### Critique Method

1. Let's not knitpick these solutions (Holacracy, Rangers pilot), but focus instead on articulating the better problems and getting to the root.
2. This might point towards defining a clear peer review process while restraining to impose too much structure.
3. Regardless of what happens, how might we make these learnings available for the wider DAO community to benefit from collectively?

### Problem Space

#### P2P Evaluation

- We identify a need for elaborating the buddy system and creating P2P accountability.
    - We need a way to determine if individuals are being paid appropriately for the value they are providing.
- This might happen organically as local emergence without requiring the full attention/distraction of the greater DAO.
    - Does this necessitate a full org redesign?
    - Does this mean a turn towards clear metrics and KPIs to quantitatively measure these outputs?
- We might also address (admittedly difficult) ideas about culture fit. 
    - This is *kinda* about vibes.
    - Does the contributor align behind the principles and values of the community?
    - Do we like working with this contributor? Is there a strong P2P fit?
    - How do we evaluate these areas? Who will do that evaluation?
- When does this escalate to conflict resolution?
    - What is the DAOhaus offboarding policy?

#### Onboarding Flows

- We have lots of new strategy for how to bring new people in that needs to be weighed with cultural vetting. 
    - How are our memetic filters operating?
    - We should be actively dismantling condescension.
    - - Contributors have been buying their way in, which bypasses these evaluations. This is an onbaording problem, but one that we can rectify with P2P evaluation.
- There's a difference between onboarding to the DAOhaus community and inviting people in to Warcamp. We should make these difference clear.
- Positioning Rangers as the top of the onboarding funnel might explain why Rangers seems to be currently (relatively) ineffectual, which is unfair to the circle and indicative of a larger DAO problem.
- We should be articulating roles and recruiting specifically for the holes in our org. This means specific onboarding on an as-needed basis that avoids general growth metrics.
- The Holacracy-related role identification is very valuable in this regard, but when is the identification and assignment of roles deemed no longer beneficial?
    - Is the Rangers 2.0 pilot proposal an example of this?
    - We need to remain critical to these roles - (open or private) critique as a method we should be encouraging in each other. (Back to P2P eval)
    - Let's discuss the difference between the assignment roles according to a central hierarchy (like Holacracy) as opposed to emergent self-assignment and theories of self-management. 
        - For example: on the Magesmiths kanban board a contributor is invited to pull the card from their peers, not push the card onto their peers. This maintains the horizontality of our org system.

#### Avoiding the Buffoonery of Bureaucracy

- As stated above, the identification of roles is important, while encouraging individuals to self-identify and step into them. Let's avoid formalizing the managerial role defined by identifying roles and serving as a quasi-authoritative position to hold those individuals accountable. 
    - This is an example of a "bullshit job" (David Graeber) and Web2/trad org trauma that recreates top-down condescension.
    - We should hold ourselves accountable to scaling back these behaviors at all costs. (The cost is cultural capture!)
- Some individuals have stepped into this role with the best intentions, to fill a need they have identified as important, but this is actually identifying a false problem. It's not their fault, but an accountibility we are all implicated in.
- Is this a matter of scale? 
    - For example: Once we have some of the bigger vision in place (during a distillation of a meme-driven development workshop, for example), the *product* manager role should be absorbed into a *project* manager role. This avoids any individual persisting outside of the sphere of collective accountibility.
- Again, the real problem is a P2P feedback cycle to help individuals understand how they can maximize impact, best apply their skillset, play to their strengths.

---

1. What is the style of dissemination for this feedback once it has been made explicit?
2. How do we make this feedback more explicit to new contributors?

---

#### Buddies = Feedback Loops

- Example: TW has a tether through e2t to keep him on track.
- This direct accountibility is essential for ongoing, scaled, and rigorous feedback on maximizing the impact of an individual contributor.
- Every Warcamp contributor should have a buddy to provide this 1:1 P2P feedback loop.
- Towards defining a new temporary role: A talent-to-need connector!
    - Invites new contributors into the super circle to help them get oriented.
    - Helps match them with current contributors based on cultural fit, working style, and skillset.
    - It's not necessarily based on 1:1 matching (Magesmiths connect with other Magesmiths), but based on the implicit and explicit needs of the contributors themselves and is therefore highly personal.
    - Proper vibes = divergent/convergent cycles, mentorships leading to friendships, working towards a common product goal through different professional experiences.
    - These pairings can be dynamic and open to continuously changing.

#### Must-haves for a Successful Pairing: Towards an MVP Buddy System

1. **Daily calls**, 4x per week. Repetition and personal reliability.
2. Allow each other to **vent** in a manner that doesn't fit in other meeting spaces. Safe space.
3. Ask for **feedback**, have reflexive conversations about org priorities. 1:1 criticality. *Requires a great degree of trust, obviously, to be built up over time.*
4. **Direct line** to ask questions about how the org works. Sometimes this generates pragmatic responses, but more significantly *this often identifies important areas that have been overlooked.* 
5. **Identify gaps**: needs to be documented for the benefit of the whole org.
6. Sharing diverse experiences and **cross-disciplinary training**. Not just professional advancement, but a performative sense of radical inclusivity of perspectives. Also allows for best fit of the contributor in relation to the whole org image.
7. Explicating the role that we imagine ourselves in and **where we are personally trying to get to**, in relation to where the organization is trying to get to. Elaborating Amos' *North Star* prompt.

#### Concerns

- What are the possible reasons some might reject this?
- What don't we want this to be?
- What should we avoid crafting this into?
- What is the minimally viable level of formalism to invite others into this system without prescribing their behaviors?

---

- Should maintain sensitivity to part-time, lower commitment contributors to not distract their engagement and the depth of their contributions.
- Set of considerations related to matching:
    - How do we ensure everyone has a buddy?
    - How do we deal with extreme differential in "seniority" and experience? Do we want to put people together at similar levels of experience, or do we want to encourage more cross-experiene conversations?
    - What happens when someone new joins and there are already an even number of contributors with buddies?
- How is the trust built with new people?
    - Perhaps a trial period for the contributors to test the waters and determine if there is a good fit before they wade into deeper waters?
- How do peeps get matched?
    - Speed dating or speed roasting?
- Perhaps some cross pollination with the RaidGuild championing/staking/slashing mechanic?