# Q3'23 Aligned Governance Strategy - Composable AVC

[Composable AVC](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/cvc-registration-submission-composable-cvc/20348) focuses on making sure as much of the output of DAO operations can be reused as possible. We want to make information accessible, and improvements compounding. Founded by jokecouncil members, we're a neutral AVC with a penchant for efficiency.

## General Composable AVC philosophy

This section is meant as a philosophical basis for ADs to understand what Composable AVC is about. It is meant to facilitate alignment to its strategy from a place of first principles.

No document can anticipate every voting decision that will come up in the future. But the philosophy and ultimately the *values* of Composable AVC should give ADs some confidence in extrapolating the direction that Composable AVC takes with regards to governance of MakerDAO.

First, a definition:
*Composability is a systems design approach made to increase agility and accelerate application development by reusing existing assets and reassembling them in unique ways to satisfy specific user requirements.*

*Composable systems break down larger projects into smaller, more modular “components.” Each component addresses a specific problem or use case. Individual components can then be selected and assembled in various combinations to create new experiences without building from scratch.*

Composability is meant to make systems more agile and accelerate development. This is the key, crucial aspect of the agenda of Composable AVC. This is the mission.

The goal is achieved by breaking down large projects into modular "components", that can be reused and reassembled **without building from scratch**. This is the key strategy of Composable AVC.

Composable AVC wants to identify patterns and standards in MakerDAO governance that can be reassembled and reused across the board.

These components could be:
* Principles of interacting
* Standards of reporting
* Ways of surfacing information
* Ways of detecting preferences
* Ways of setting direction
* Budgeting principles
* ...

With this philosophy as a basis we can turn to more specific voting guidance for ADs following Composable AVC.

## Voting guidelines for ADs with GSLs to Composable AVC
This section is intended to assist ADs in casting votes that are in accordance with the Aligned Governance Strategy applying patterns and standards to how the voting is done, while simultaneously enhancing the ability of Composable AVC members to ensure that the justifications provided by the ADs align with the strategy.

Delegates are encouraged to develop their own scoring for the following criteria. Upon publishing the reasoning this would promote modularity and hopefully accelerate learnings. Or promote healthy competition for the most sound reasoning.

Here are some specific guidelines:

ADs serving Composable AVC should vote in favor of proposals that enhance:
* clarity of objectives
* reporting and knowledge sharing
* standardization of reporting requirements to make comparisons easier
* cross-team and cross-function messaging tooling

ADs serving Composable AVC should vote against proposals that introduce:
* behind the doors dealing and gatekeepers
* opaque and one-off structures
* mechanisms for putting out fires instead of improving processes
* short term fix proposals without scalable solutions detailed or acknowledged

The document so far has no mention of budgets or concrete responsibilities, which as a matter of course, are the subject of the vast majority of polls.

Composable AVC is budget neutral, neither hawkish nor dovish. But the philosophy of agility and acceleration has some ramificications:

* Eliminate waste and spending on duplicate or repeated efforts, instead focusing on reuse, modularity, and reassembly.
* Eliminate redundancies and instead develop sharing and reporting functions
* Promote standardisation and information portals that make discovery of past output easier
* Make sure that specific aspects that are shared between scopes are used by all parties, with a central point of truth, instead of parallel efforts that drift apart over time
* Encourage cross-scope pollination and input. As an example if a scope has decided to employ an Advisory Council member for budgeting and reporting standards, the output of this expert shall be reused by every other scope. The other scopes should in this case **not** hire another expert with the same mandate and develop a competing standard. Instead the standard developed should focus on clear interfaces, an open, permissionless improvement and development process and should get input from as many stakeholders as possible.

## Criteria for voting that ADs must consider in justifying their votes

To further align the ADs with the Composable AVC strategy and facilitate decision-making, the following voting criteria have been established. ADs should consider these criteria when evaluating proposals.

These answers will guide the AD in aligning the vote with the Composable AVC’s strategy and philosophy.

For each proposal, ADs should go through the criteria and answer with Yes/No/Not Applicable and base their AD Forum post (voting justification) on this.

* Composability enhancement: Assess if the proposal enhances the reusability and composability of existing assets and systems.
* Efficiency and waste elimination: Evaluate if the proposal contributes to eliminating waste and promotes efficiency.
* Transparency and clarity: Ensure the proposal maintains a high level of transparency and clarity in objectives.
* Information accessibility and sharing: Check if the proposal facilitates easy access to information and promotes knowledge sharing.
* Alignment with the Atlas: Determine if the proposal aligns with the universal intention as outlined in the Atlas.
* Stakeholder inclusion: Verify if the proposal incorporates input and feedback from a diverse range of stakeholders.
* Innovation and long-term growth: Assess if the proposal contributes to long-term growth and innovation.

If an AD can answer "Yes" to one or more of the seven questions above, the vote will be approved, unless any condition is met that specifically dictates, according to the three guidelines, that ADs must vote against the proposal.

An AD may answer "No" or "Not Applicable" to all seven of the preceding questions, with the exception of compliance with the Atlas, which must always be met, and still support the proposal. However, in such instances, the AD is required to provide a custom justification for the vote.

## Closing thoughts

For any decision that is presented as a poll to MakerDAO, ADs with GSLs to Composable AVC should ask themselves if the vote introduces duplicate efforts and spending, and if a similar result could be achieved with sharing already existing processes and resources.

This is specifically in context of the ATLAS's mention of **Universal Alignment**.

From the Atlas:
> Being universally aligned allows an actor to understand the intention of universally aligned rules, and discover discrepancies between the technical incentives of rules and their universal intention.

Composability helps this process of universal alignment by reducing the cognitive load of understanding intention.

* A shared budgeting standard makes comparisons easier.
* Shared processes for developing organizational principles improves the understanding *everyone* has of these principles.
* Common reporting building blocks means that governance participants can see what is happening at a glance.

In this respect, composability is an acceleration tool for universal alignment. ADs following Composable AVC should take that to heart and vote accordingly.