---
###### tags: `Buddy System`
---

# Buddy System Paladins Meeting

- **This all started with the intention to onbaord new contributors as fast and efficient as possible.** There's value to contribute to onboarding, but we want to discuss the larger impact.
- **This is a difficult time**, a frustrating space, and these conversations have become crucial to our mental health, to add value to the DAO, to help each other continue to identify how we can add that value beyond measurement.
- **BS creates a safe space** for contributors to share their raw thoughts. Especially important for more gentle spirits/softer voices, for woman seeking an inlet to the patriarchal structure, and generally to empower any/all to find their place in the org.
- **How do we systematize this structure?** Some contributors feel that they want more structure. Where does this come from? Do they decide amongst themselves or is it agreed upon and imposed from without?
- Travii's's began with an agile standup structure: what have you accomplished, what are you working on, where are you going. This allows us to identify blockages, breakdowns, pain points, etc, to activate the work as much possible.
- Ventilation (blowing off steam) is an important part of the process and should not be overrated!
- Every BS pairing might devise their own structure and adapt it to their needs (which will vary wildly across individual personalities, needs of the circles/initiatives, etc)
- **How to solicit feedback from our buddies so that the learnings can be applied to the wider DAO?**
- Propose we all begin with an agile standup?
- How to encourage improvisation/adaptation?
- How to keep the structure loose/malleable enough to make everyone comfortable while maintaining the visibility of the tasks, value, etc?
- **Key value add is exchanging experiences across the space, the DAO, and from our idiosyncratic skill sets.**
- Books, blogs, expanded research from unexpected sources
- Professional experiences, social encounters, wildly divergent cultural ideas
- Specific best practices and SOP tailored to the DAO space: DAO-specific experience
- **Not every contributor is a coach, has the skillset to coach, or wants to coach.**
- Should the BS remain voluntary?
- How might we devise a system to display buddies that are available (volunteers) for contributors that need buddies to choose from?
- How might we create **a decentralized system for building trust** while avoiding the entire DAO dedicating resources to keeping tabs on everyone and everything?
- *Is there a potential cultural attack vector?*
- *Is there a weakness of the system being gamed?*
- How might we anticipate potential collusion or malicious behavior?
- Do we want to impose limits on how many buddies any contributor should have? For reasons?
- **Mentorship is a huge value add.** How do we amplify it?
- How might we encourage each other to "pay it forward?" So the experiences and accountability can permeate through the larger DAO?
- Coordinape is biased towards contributors providing highly visible work, biased against the less visible contributions. The BS might bring visibility to these more discrete initiatives and support their appropriate compensation with less need (and resulting friction, anxiety, pressure) for the individual to defend that work.
- **Is there a limit to this BS?**
- Is there an intended end point?
- Does the pilot end or does the program last forever?
- If there is no end point and each contributor continue to accumulate buddies, when is this perceived to be a breakdown or disadventageous?
- What is the point of diminishing returns? How do we identify the maximum value threshold and anticipate constraints after it is reached/surpassed?
- Does this require a policy or a mechanism to determine? How is this weighed against self-sovereign buddy pairings and individuals?
- **Do buddies need to be selected from with the primary circle?** How do we feel about cross-circle buddy pollination?
- Does there need to be policy on this?
- Reference: pair programming - especially for technical contributors
- We might consider as many different styles of buddy pairings as their are unique personalities and skillsets within the DAO, ie: *infinite possibilities*
- Higher priority is to keep the structure fluid and avoid prescription to maintain the freedom of the individual.
- **How long is the BS term?** How might we encourage the freedom to define longer- and shorter-term pairings?
- Sketch out templates for different buddy configurations.
- How might we create a repository of forkable and generative templates as invitation for other contributors to adapt to their own needs?

## Ideas

**Provide**

- Basic structure
- Guidelines and best practices
- Tools for giving and receiving feedback

### Potential Structure

- Blow off
- Stand up
- Drill down


## Warcamp Weekly Feedback

- [Discussion Notes](https://hackmd.io/Awo4MtFGQbarFEnMCmdiLA#May-23-2022)

### Other Notes

- How do buddies get selected?
- Framework has existed
- Others have not adopted it
- People who want buddies can get them
- Don't need a system
- Should not add administrative overhead
- What problems are we trying to solve?
- Individual personal development
- Connection to the community
- Avoid leaving people out
- When having a buddy is normalized
- Not having a buddy could be the worst thing for community