owned this note
owned this note
Published
Linked with GitHub
The Aragon Cooperative DAO
Post-Vote-Mortem
=
Sitting watching Europe lurch to right and the insidious spread of populism/fascism here in the UK and across the continent (w. some exceptions i.e. go España!), it seems somehow appropriate to share some thoughts regarding the recent set of concluded Coop votes.
I accept of course that this is a subjective opinion (aren’t they all?), and I’ll focus on the 2 mainnet Coop votes I setup (+ the OPEN:2019 CFDAO vote). Let’s start with:
**Vote #19: ACPP-1 Payment Request**
(finished 7/7 50/50, didn't pass)...
Over the course of the voting period, what became apparent from some of the community is that though there is acknowledged agreement Gus and I should be paid for our prior agreed work, the haphazard process this proposal took was not acceptable (with a deciding number of votes later changed). There were evidently also members for whom the payment was just not (currently?) acceptable. The 7 ‘no’ votes in total made up exactly half. There is another half (7 votes) who supported the DAI payments (for Gustavo and myself). There is also nine (9) of our current MBR token holders who didn’t vote at all (with most of those seemingly having not participated in the coop for a while, including the last AGP round). As mentioned on keybase, ‘some churn should be expected’ - I’d agree with that, as well as an awareness that more can be done regards a current sense of member inclusivity and participation.
(quotes from AGP-40)
``
"*Summary*
We propose to organise, manage, and drive forward the Aragon Cooperative DAO. Committed to work for the benefit of Aragon and serving our members, we aim to support the cohesion of the Aragon community overall. While leading by example to consider, produce, and promote emergent Cooperative DAO principles, we are equally engaged in the overall Aragon ethos (including exploring the work and outputs taking place herein) and sharing such products with the wider blockchain global ecosystem at large.
Aragon Cooperative DAO will manage the overall funds, with the current expectation to be that we will propose Julian Brooks and Gustavo Segovia to be paid for their contributions, working two (2) days per week each (four days in total p.w.)."
``
I have demonstrably worked on every one of the above points in the AGP-40 summary over this month (happy to go through point by point if required). I can also appreciate it’s such a wonderful job description that others may well think “I should be doing this, not them”.
**ACGP-4 #20**
(Finished 2/9, didn't pass)
I do accept the requirement for potential change of our structure (it’s why I triggered the vote), bringing this situation to a head on purpose, convinced that the path we were on was not sustainable – I have no regrets at all in making this vote happen.
While accepting of my role in this perceived disarray -- failures addressed in a [previous post](https://forum.aragon.org/t/an-open-letter-to-the-aragon-cooperative-dao-community/985) -- the current Cooperative situation is resolvable and can reach successful outcome; measured by any metric.
If we can successfully decentralise into a ‘Consensus based Democracy’ type organisation after only 3 weeks of existence, that would be a tremendous success – I thought it would take a minimum of 6 months! It is important though that this does not become a ‘[Tyranny of Structurelessness](https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm)’, with an unspoken, unelected inner coterie of unacknowledged power, overseeing and manipulating events. Input from an active and as wide as possible membership will be vital for our success, something I will help keep working towards, if and when I can.
Sadly it’s also true that from Friday 17th May 2019, Gustavo and myself are currently unable to work together. Perhaps in the future we will have the possibility to resolve our issues and clearing the air, perhaps via mediation. I do hope so, and don’t see how why eventually we cannot. Regardless though, these things happen. I am sorry others were pulled into this, and that it was played out in a range of public forums.
There are actually many more positive achievements to focus on; the CFDAO has a strong WG in place and is ready for action when required, several members are participating far more actively (e.g. props to @aaronfosterreal in particular who’s been very active over the last week or so), outreach is already happening, more people and groups are experimenting with Aragon DAO’s because of our work, WG's are expanding, momentum is growing. Though it contains many of the issues Gustavo and I have been unsuccessfully wrestling with over the last couple of weeks, @burrrata’s ‘temp’ workflow proposal has at least rallied some support and potential progress (I’ve voted for it anyway). There’s been a suggestion, currently under debate, whether a rebranding/name change would perhaps be appropriate, allied to our recent ‘deep reboot’ - certainly all of these I see as potentially useful avenues to explore (& are up for debate). The Coop has been, and also continues to be, far more active over the last 2 months than previously. We are doing it, it is working, but it requires much more -- we can collectively do this together and successfully pull it off, if we really want it.
Some further steps will include, how the next set of votes will be key for the Cooperatives future – we will require input from all current token MBR holders – it’s time for these Token holders to ‘use it or lose it’. We also need to open the gates to our recent/proto-members, with simplified onboarding process to gain the MBR token via MRT (& deal with the on/offboarding complexities in our next voting/onboarding round once the process is clearly agreed).
We also have to be doing things out in the open – no secret polls (via dm’s), unverifiable proclamations, no controlling access to sources of information or potential discussion. We should model the evidence based language and open ways of working as proposed [here](https://forum.aragon.org/t/proposed-working-groups-for-the-aragon-network-dao/965). There should be a broader acceptance of our members’ interests and skillsets, how we can more inclusively put these to best use. Exploring what 'shipping product' could be measured as, should be a regular part of our research into, and meetings about the Coop. The perceived metrics of success is certainly something that I've become more conscious about, our membership and outputs require multiple metrical models, to measure the quantitative and qualitative methods of our members' inputs and practices.
**CFDAO #8, OPEN:2019 Proposal**
E.g: For me, taking the ‘DAO Show’ out on the road is as natural as building a github repository for others - I perceive them _both_ as 'shipping product'. I consider myself 'releasing early & often' on that front already. I can't stress enough how important it is that we get our message and tools out into a number of influential communities, organisations and companies - especially as this demonstrates a clear metric of contribution to the wider Aragon Network itself - outreach/ knowledge sharing/ building awareness, being part of the Cooperatives AGP -40 key deliverables.
Finally (perhaps this should be a separate post) – I propose we require a method to salt our votes – I’ve been made aware that MBR holders voting choices are being highlighted (via dm's) for political leverage, and I think tools such as [this](https://github.com/aragon/aragon-apps/blob/master/apps/voting/scripts/vote-stats.js) can leave our members (and others in small DAO communities) exposed to potential manipulation, and/or self-censorship.
[EDIT] - This is currently not possible. I wonder if [this](https://hackmd.io/s/rJj9hEJTN) recent post re 'mixers', might point to some longer term Eth-based solutions for this issue.
Thanks for your time, and am happy to discuss any of this further…