search

Catalyst-Circle / Catalyst-Prioritized-Problems

The repository for Catalyst Circle Prioritized Problems
12 stars 6 forks source link

Unless IOG is willing to give up it's Catalyst Circle seat after emergence of DCF, DCF will need it's own seat #72

Open mark-stopka opened 2 years ago

mark-stopka commented 2 years ago

Daniel Ribar - beware of scam

[In reply to Mark Stopka] I think it was referred to in the early brainstorming.

CC seems somewhat viable now. BUT from sustainability and efficiency each representative would benefit greatly from sub circle formation that would support the high level CC rep. That would give structure better legs to stand on.

CAs seem to me like a good candidate group to give it a go with CA Circle potentially. Which has been the long term vision generally with each stakeholder groups. Work load will only intensify imo so this seems desirable.

Mark Stopka

I believe circle needs to be extended, but I am happy to observe the sub-circle develop for now, and follow up on this after two sprints

Daniel Ribar - beware of scam

[In reply to Mark Stopka] There's room to move around surely. But also more bodies - it slows down things as well. Maybe good for now.

Hence am thinking of that outsoucing/supporting of workload down stream to sub circles is a good step forward.

Mark Stopka

[In reply to Daniel Ribar - beware of scam] If IO seat is later to be replaced by DCF, sure, if not, DCF will need its own

Source: Telegram CatalystCommunityAdvisors Channel

dimitrifernando commented 2 years ago

Why do we need IOG and DCF? What is the benefit or danger that having both these entities involved in governance be for the community? Does the entire community have access to DCF funds or is it only BIG companies?

If entire Catalyst community has access to DCF and its funding, then they should join. but if NOT, then why would they need to be involved in governance in the first place?