Catching up on current stuff, thoughts and responses to current discourse in makerdao community. Roughly half on governance facilitators, and half my conceptions of what scientific governance encompasses (especially relating to voting in any ratified actor).
First thoughts, more sporadic:
I'm not sure we can get enough demand without paying facilitators for the bulk of the work. It looks like a lot. Facilitation, coordination and refinement of complex information is a tough task.
If a facilitator has minimal decision making power, then a formal mechanisms for disagreeing with decisions shouldnt be super necessary. A poll of confidence or satisfaction rating may be a useful tool for gauging sentiment, but I would be wary of letting decisions on teams/individuals be susceptible to a network wide vote at any moment. Then, a few whales could reorg at will. Restricting voting times and keeping facilitators for a set term reduces that specific risk.
Interested facilitators might be better off applying for grants from the governance apparatus. For example, apply for year long grant with some sort of midterm report/check up 6 months in the contract (or quarter or monthly, whatever we think most effective). In their application they would lay out their goals/hopes and the midterm report would relate progress and roadblocks to those ideas from their application.
MKR holders could release a general framework for the application. I’m thinking basic info, disclosure of mkr holdings to the community (arguments both ways), time in the community, other work done for the DAO, other experience, and statements regarding thoughts on the DAO and ideals for the future as well as controversial issues. If we are willing it could be a dynamic process. We could allow for applicants to define the amount/type of work they have bandwidth for, as well as an hourly rate. This lets governance more fully manage resources as well as more data to review the efficiency of the capital spent.
My second group of thoughts relates to the lack of science in some of our governance processes.
I think it's a good time for MKR holders to recognize that “scientific” governance includes much more than math and engineering. The core principles document outlining scientific governance focuses mainly on risk management, failing to realize that risk cannot be fully captured in mathematical reductionist frameworks. . I perceive that governance decisions must take into an account methods for growing social capital as an essential aspect of managing systemic risk.
My lazy google definition of science:
“The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” (google, et al)
Science defines all Intellectual and actionable activity devoted to the systematic study of structured frameworks as well as the observations of stuff within those frameworks. As an analysis tool it must analyze itself in order to eventually react when paradigm shifts occur (new data/structures to consider).
For MKR holders that means to engage with scientific governance we need to fully consider the structures we utilize in context our goal of being a decentralized organization maintaining a global, sovereign, stable and secure socio-economic structure. Even the decision on how to set a framework for evaluating governance facilitators calls in a ton of questions about incentives, social relations between Maker ecosystem components, cultural differences and conflict resolution. To make wise decisions around expectations for these actors, MKR holders need to be informed by the social sciences such as interpersonal biology/psychology and sociology.
Economics is a social science as well, to ignore that aspect of our collective decision making in favor of more “rigorous” scientific thought appears imprecise. Reducing the scope and nature of our scientific inquiry fundamentally increases the systematic isolation of possible participants along with the robustness that comes with diversity of thought. Let's face it masculine perspectives generally dominate the communities thinkspace.
No single team can encompass the demands of that goal obviously. The governance facilitators is a good place to start, I think, but I’d also like the community to consider incentivising sociological inquiry/research into our ecosystem. This will help inform the vortex of complexity MKR holders must juggle to achieve the goals. I hypothesize that inclusion of scientific thought will help clarify, rather than obfuscate what this organization hope to achieve.