I think a good idea is for this change to be coupled with some soft benefits for committee members, such as being mentioned in the Fingerprints’ website and other official channels, and more things we can ideate around.
This looks like a great framework. I’m excited to get curation going. A few comments/questions:
Point 2 - each nominee should create their own individual forum post? Or will there be one large forum post where all nominations occur as replies?
Point 4 - will the total annual curation budget be formulated by the curation committee itself? I’m sure this is already being envisioned by you guys, but it would be good to have the committee get input from the DAO as they formulate their budget.
In terms of executing acquisitions - is there a set process for this or will the Curation committee determine the best way to do this for each individual acquisition?
Overall, well written framework, and I’m looking forward to seeing the committee in action.
I would add more color to the formation week. Example: The Formation Week begins one week before the end of each tenure. In that week, the candidates will send their pitches in the first two days, and the vote will occur in the following five days. The candidates’ pitch shall be posted on the dedicated Forum topic and limited to 200 words.
Excellent work Luiz and Lucas - thank you for putting this together.
@Plutonium_F raises some good points here, thank you for your comments:
I personally think the process of acquisition proposals should be simple or informal, with a member sharing the proposed work to other committee members, and then this being discussed within the commitee discord channel and voted on at the bi-weekly meeting.
Defining conflict of interest more clearly would be a good idea. I know a lot of us are active collectors and as individuals we are more agile and can acquire more quickly than the DAO. Thus we often consider works that many members already own.
I would also like to see some process about the actual acquisition spelt out. ie. perhaps a committee member is the designated contact with the finance team, who actually execute the purchase through multi-sig or whatever appropriate means.
Maybe members should also be expected to work with marketing to provide copy when new acqusitions are made. I dont mind if this is one member for the whole tenure, or whether it is an itinerant role.
One thought: the vision laid out in the “Engagement” session is very horizontal. Don’t you think we could benefit from a little more accountability? I’m pretty sure ideas like these have been suggested in the past
Maybe elect (or draw) a committee leader (3-or full 6-month term)? Responsible for (1) holding the bi-weekly calls, (2) bringing curation suggestions from open forums to the committee; (3) communicating call agendas to rest of members; (4) communicating acquisitions; (5) alerting/cutting off inactive committee members ?
These activities are shared among committee members today - it works; I just feel it can be more functional when there’s someone accountable for them. As far as I remember, Sam once played this role, but then it dissipated and wasn’t reinstated. Curious to hear your thoughts.
No rules other than the ones currently being proposed in here. The idea is to have the committee organize itself internally.
This is an allowance for staff compensation each committee will have, not for the committee members themselves.
I think the general idea of these proposals is to make it as minimal/short as possible, and avoid over-regulating the DAO needlessly. We can always extend the rules in the future if we run into problems.
No limits on reelections. I suppose if a committee member has been doing a good job, no reason to disallow him from continuing to do so. Also, we’re not likely to have enough candidates to rotate the entire committee too often.
I agree, but I don’t think we need to make it a formal rule in the proposal. Keeping only the critical things in there is the way to go IMO.
I think we can trust the judgement of committee members.
If members are unsure of whether there’s a conflict, they can bring their doubt to the rest of the committee. Otherwise, we might make the proposal needlessly long. We can always extend it later.
I think the idea is to allow each committee to choose their own working framework. I expect them to arrive at a standard model, but I think this doesn’t have to be formalized in this proposal.
This will definitely happen. We already have people in place to take care of announcements that will be in touch with the committee staff. No need to include this in the proposal though, IMO.
The idea is to make these sort of DAO regulations as light and short as possible, that way more people can read and understand it, the “legislation” process becomes shorter and we avoid scaring people off from becoming committee members.
Definitely! These things are supposed to be attributed to committee staff, though, which this proposal creates an allowance for.
Conscious that the (presumably) arbitrary date set for the new curation committee was yesterday, and am just wondering what next steps would look like for implementing the regiment.
Are we re-drafting with suggested edits and then putting to wider DAO for snapshot voting?