search

aragon / governance

Proposals about governance models for the Aragon project and the Aragon Network
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
51 stars 11 forks source link

AGP 2: Aragon Community Governance Model #3

Closed luisivan closed 7 years ago

luisivan commented 7 years ago

Goals

We want a productive, happy and agile community that can welcome and bring forth new ideas.

We will rely on 5 key principles:

Description

Our Code of Conduct and Community Guidelines act as a basis for all our community activity, how to participate, how to grow our community, how to represent Aragon to others outside the community.

Proposed meetings:

Structures:

Uncertainties

Any right now, but feedback is very welcome! And thanks @kennyrowe for the feedback on this and @Smokyish for the initial draft and putting everything together!

AaronFoster commented 7 years ago

This is fantastic. The YouTube stuff will be great for acquiring new community members

fadda commented 7 years ago

Fantastic! Such approach should become standard for every publicly funded project on the blockchain.

izqui commented 7 years ago

I agree with everything, good job Luis.

Let me add my two wei:

Smokyish commented 7 years ago

@izqui The idea would be to utilize the upcoming wiki for the notes, links etc.

AaronFoster commented 7 years ago

@izqui that would be excellent (2 Wei, Lol)

When do you propose to start the community meetings/team hangouts @luisivan

luisivan commented 7 years ago

Agree with both using Carbon Vote and creating a new repo for important resources, or as @Smokyish said, using the wiki.

@AaronFoster I propose to start ASAP! So we can do the first ones during July

Smokyish commented 7 years ago

We are looking to finalize this soon, so please leave your feedback regarding this model during this week.

AaronFoster commented 7 years ago

@luisivan I can't wait. @Smokyish I haven't got any other than bring on July. You guys have clearly thought this through well.

My only concern is getting non technical people onto github.

schmidsi commented 7 years ago

This looks really inspiring. Good work. Maybe the Sociocracy 3.0 framework could also be considered as (partly) inspiration.

miguelprados commented 7 years ago

Sorry for the long post, regarding what @luisivan and @izqui commented, I will express my point of view with a real example:

I plan to register my startup’s SHA and initial capital distribution among partners in AN, so I will invest the equivalent euros into ETH with the agreed percentage distribution with my partners (when possible).

Then I'll have to legally register my company in Spain. For the Bylaws to be approved I need to submit a bank certificate with the initial bank deposit certificate of the declared shared capital (common stock), instead, I will submit the smart contract that AN can provide that we’ve effectively invested that capital (equivalent) in ETH. Most probably the notary will deny the registration, then I can initiate a legal claim for that smart contract to be declared valid, otherwise, if one of my partners starts a claim, I will be defenceless, as I might be anyway if my private SHA (different from the Bylaws) is not registered in a notary.

That legal claim, if successful, will open the doors to any company in Spain to legally register their companies within the AN. As I see it, whether to support or follow (or not) from Aragon that legal claim, can’t be a decision taken only by Aragon’s team and/or shareholders of ANT, it has to be a decision taking also globally with all the companies registered in AN or those registered or planning to be registered in Spain.

For Aragon, as a disintermediation company, getting rid of the notaries could be the goal to follow, but on the other hand, many companies unable to legally register their companies can be discouraged to use AN at all (when the first legal claim is pursued, maybe lost, and make it public). It’s not an easy decision to take, as it is not easy to change the world, but we should try.

As planned in AGP 2: Aragon Community Governance Model #3 the "virtual places" for taking decisions are: Dev meeting, Aragon HQTeam and Team hangout, which are basically closed spaces for the Aragon’s team plus some selected contributors, with a Project Lead or Tech Lead having the final call. As described, these decisions spaces aren't independent, plural, diverse, decentralised and/or autonomous, and that's OK depending on the decisions to be taken. The Community meeting (as described) is just a Q/A forum. Institute Aragon Improvement Proposal, AIP, is an open proposal forum with higher community interactions but unrestricted to a particular stakeholder (for example companies with a registered SHA in Aragon).

The proposal to include a token for ANT holders to vote using carbon voting doesn’t solve the issue (for example on whether to support a legal claim or not) because, if they're asked, probably they will vote against any intention to enter any legal battle to legally register a company, because their interest is disintermediation and ANT value (tell me the forum, let me design the question, and I will tell you the outcome before it comes, and that’s apparent democracy, not real one). Also carbon voting is a traditional approach to voting, more shares more voting power. One person one vote is the correct approach in decentralised decisions, using something like a Bitnation Citizenship ID (although I am not enthusiastic about the founder Susanne) I think is a better approach and can lead to very interesting synergies between Aragon and Bitnation.

In summary, the question to be asked should drive the Who and How to vote taking the appropriate stakeholders and diversity onboard (techies and non-techies :), maybe creating different "districts" (as in https://district0x.io/) for different stakeholders (developers, AN companies, ANT holders, open communities).

I am not a techie myself, but I’ve made (I think) the world’s first online open list candidates for local municipal elections in Spain back in 2011, curiously enough, Adan Sanchez de Pedro (Stampery CTO) was the selected candidate for Malaga with only 18 years at that time. Since then I’ve been involved in taking online decisions for communities like the open city voting for the approval or denial of Seville’s mayor candidacy. I am pasionated about participatory democracy and collective intelligence.

I am really glad to see that you are taking governance as a big thing as I think it is, and I’d love to contribute to the discussion if you find it useful.

Smokyish commented 7 years ago

@miguelprados This is the Community Governance Model and you're talking about Aragon Network Governance, which is quite different from this issue. The AN Governance Model has not been proposed yet, there are now two AGP's that would be parts of the larger sum that is AN Governance model, the AVT and Ranking system proposals. The Governance Model for AN is not something that will be rushed and pushed out in a hurry, it will take time to form the complete model along with feedback from our Advisors and community.

This Community Governance Model has been designed to be quite flat and non-hierarchical, everyone in the community has an equal opportunity to participate in shaping Aragon, they can create AIP's, participate in discussions on different platforms, participate in AMA's and regular public meetings.

Obviously there has to be some degree to who can participate in the calls, having tens or hundreds of people on the calls would be chaotic and impossible to maintain, so the issues will be brought up by those participating in the call and the Facilitator taking care of everything being included in the agenda. Every issue brought up there will be treated the same, no matter whom it comes from.

And also there has to be some way to make a decision, voting is a good choice cause it gives everyone a chance to participate. Until the Aragon Network is up and running, someone has to make the decisions that are related to Aragon and the Team will be in charge of their own work. The community will be given a chance to participate in every step, as stated in the model, anyone who is actually contributing to the project will have the chance to participate in the Meetings and calls as well.

miguelprados commented 7 years ago

@Smokyish Community Governance and Aragon Network Governance will have areas of interaction as "districts" having "roads" in common. The example I've exposed is just to illustrate that the question to be asked is the driver of the Who and How to vote and the decisions may involve various stakeholders. As described, Dev meeting, Aragon HQTeam and Team hangout, are Aragon Team's internal meetings, and the Community meeting (as described) is just a Q/A forum. The only community governance is then the Institute Aragon Improvement Proposal, AIP. Maybe an idea is to start naming those Areas (districts) of decisions to clarify, I didn't quite get it on a first read.

Smokyish commented 7 years ago

@miguelprados I disagree.

Dev Meeting:

Aragon HQ Meeting:

Community Meeting: Yes, this is less formal and designed to be a way to engage and interact with the community, but does not exclude new issues being brought up, answered and discussed live. There will also be a live chat and comments on Youtube besides the questions from reddit, so anyone can participate in there as well.

The Meetings will take place at a time to cover many timezones, but not everyone might be able to join the live discussion, which is why there are multiple venues where issues can be brought up as well as discussed live, so saying that AIP's would be the only way to participate is just plain false.

miguelprados commented 7 years ago

Thanks, that clarifies some doubts. Adding issues (as in Dev Meeting and HQ meetings) is openness for proposals, not openness for decisions, which is perfectly fine, but naming is important and proposals are different from decisions, that's governance, and it is fine if the final decision on software development is closed to the team, there are no issues with that, as responsibles are the management team. That's why Areas (or districts) of decisions are a good way to construct a "constitution" for the Aragon community, which includes the Aragon Network (as a different area of discussion that overlaps). I am making these comments with the healthy intention to help, I hope the writing doesn't ruin that :)

Smokyish commented 7 years ago

We could make some classifications for proposals and decisions, categorize some as "community", ones where we take a community vote and others as "team" decisions for the community to have their voices be heard.

This will require some further planning on how to conduct the voting, where to publish the information about upcoming and on-going votes, how the get the information to as many people as possible, how to prevent sybil attacks, how to conclude that the community's voice has been heard, what conclusions to draw from the results of a vote, how and when to publicly present the data from the voting to the team and the community, etc.

And i agree, there is bound to be overlap with the Community and AN Governance, we will keep both as flat and inclusive as possible, and there will a lot more of "community" issues/decisions with things related to the AN.

And this current system isn't trustless, it places trust in that the two founders have the best intentions of the project in mind.

miguelprados commented 7 years ago

@Smokyish That's a good approach. It's like districts of decision (Development, Aragon Network, ANT Traders) with a council on each of them. The Council of each district is always permeable to proposals but the decisions are taken by the Council. The Council can decide by voting in direct democracy, by consensus, for some decisions is delegated/liquid democracy (not a fan, because it's breaks the rule, one person one vote), for some decisions is restricted to x members that contributed with y, for some is strictly restricted to team/founders, and even artificial intelligence will have to be weighted to assess whether it looks for "the general welfare" as DAO democracy proposed.

Regardless of the structure, I think the start point is Who has the final call. At Aragon it's not clear for me, whether is the Aragon Network (that's my particular view), the ANT traders/holders, or the founders. Once that is clarified, the construction of Aragon's constitution will be easier. To provide THE voting power to ANT traders with an AVT token I think that it may not add any value to the ANT share. Taking a small share of the registered companies at AN (investing ANT on them) will add massive value to ANT holders as they will have shares of a pool of companies (and Aragon in betting for their success, a big incentive to join AN), and that's is basically why I think decisions should be at the AN's heart, it makes sense.

Smokyish commented 7 years ago

No further changes will be made to this version, closing the issue.

izqui commented 7 years ago

We should clone the EIP format and merge a PR with a markdown file when a proposal has been completed and acceoted

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, 7:33 PM Tatu notifications@github.com wrote:

No further changes will be made to this version, closing the issue.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/aragon/governance/issues/3#issuecomment-314841335, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAbTYKPHioaQO5hioZ8VtUCfpj9HbKnyks5sNQN7gaJpZM4OH376 .