Below is the proposal for an organizational redesign in which we will introduce a new way of organizing contributors and allocating resources that we believe will greatly improve the ability of Fingerprints to accomplish its goals while promoting decentralization and empowering working members.
Some of the most important parameters in the proposal are in bold, so to provoke reflection as to what would be the ideal values in your opinions.
PS: Many thanks to @adrianleb for his contributions in the drafting of this proposal.
This proposal updates Fingerprints organizational design, simplifying its structure through the introduction of the Working Group Framework.
Working Groups will become the basic unit for organizing and dividing work within the DAO, to be proposed directly by Fingerprints members.
The new model aims to achieve the following effects:
- grant more freedom and flexibility for working members to self-organize;
- improve the competitiveness of Fingerprints when seeking to attract and retain talent;
- reduce the frequency of DAO-wide voting for daily expenses and other work-related affairs;
- allow for easier and tailored tinkering of the DAOs working groups;
- introduce a simpler, more decentralized and more flexible organizational design.
Working Group Framework
Working groups are the basic units of contributors and resources with shared objectives and responsibilities;
a. working groups must be proposed by Fingerprints members following a standardized formation proposal template;
b. working groups must have clear activities, responsibilities, KPIs, and budget requirements to be specified in its formation proposal;
c. attributions must be high-level and open-ended to allow for work flexibility within the working group;
d. working groups are free to self-organize, having full discretion over compensation schemes, hierarchies and budget allocations;
e. working groups are encouraged (though not required) to establish open structures that allow for decentralized cooperation and provide equal opportunities to newcomers wishing to join the work;
f. working group formation proposals must be approved via Snapshot.
Each working group must elect a facilitator to be its main governance representative, responsible for facilitating the interface with the rest of the DAO;
a. facilitators don’t hold any special power by default, although it might be granted in the formation proposal;
b. each working group’s Facilitator will be responsible for reporting requirements;
c. participation in community calls and other unstructured types of reporting are expected from Facilitators;
Working groups will have a review term — to be specified in the formation proposal — after which their performance must be reviewed and their continuation approved or rejected by the DAO;
a. renewal of working group operations will require submission of a renewal proposal, similar in content to the formation proposal, detailing deliverables and budget requirements;
Working groups can be dissolved at any moment by a Snapshot vote;
a. operational and financial obligations relative to the working group will be honored by the DAO until the end of the month in which the dissolution gets approved.
- Funds shall be transferred from a dedicated Opex vault to each working group in a pay-as-you-go schedule, to be specified in the formation (or renewal) proposal;
- Working groups are expected to adopt adequate security measures when safeguarding their funds;
- Any excess funds must be returned to the Opex vault at the end of the feedback period.
WG Formation Proposal Template
WG Renewal Proposal Template
Great write up @lucaspon !
I would add that the formation and renewal of Working Groups must be approved by snapshot vote.
Also, should we have a fixed term of 3 months for every Working Group or leave it open depending on the deliverables? We could have some Working Groups with very specific and short term tasks and other ones with more recurring and longer term tasks.
I think this is a great step in the right direction. No real feedback as I think this is a comprehensive start (though we’ll likely have to iterate on the framework over time).
In response to @Klamt.eth’s second question - I kind of lean towards leaving it open ended, depending on deliverables is ideal; that way the DAO as a whole doesn’t have to vote to renew a group 4 times a year. But we’d need a robust framework for winding down a working group if the DAO felt it wasn’t operating properly.
I would like to add the suggestion here to give a fun, distinctive name, alternative to the more bland “working group”. Yearn has yTeams, Maker has Core Units. I would take @adrianleb’s suggestion to use “Fingers” (btw Adrian should be credited as contributor to this proposal).
I like the “Fingers” because it both suggests each finger is independent but has to be acting in coordination with the others to get us to our DAO-wide objectives.
It will be a nice complement to $PRINTS, who ultimately control each Finger.
I support this design. Seems to be in line with a more decentralized DAO. I think the 3 month term is appropriate since groups giving quarterly updates makes sense. Since it is clear we will have “longer term” groups, it also makes sense that 3 months is the default, but upon snapshot approval (which is needed to approve working groups) a different time frame could be fine. 3 months doesn’t need to be a strict rule, and certainly the DAO (voters) should have discretion to approve almost anything reasonable.
I do think the curation board should be more flexible as a working group much like it is now, but with some clear rules like for participation. Curation seems like the one working group where a clear objective, aside from the canons of FP themselves, may not be known until the proper collections arise. They are also tasked with moving quickly sometimes. More to be discussed here and not my area of expertise.
Another topic I keep harping on, because its vital to our member base, is the 1k tier. I dont think we should do away with this because working groups are in being put in place. A contributor who comes in on the 1k tier could simply be an active member with feedback, projects, sporadic work throughout the year, and so on, as opposed to be in a working group fulltime. I think the discussion around this org design should be consciously aware it is not making a decision on the 1k tier membership issue.
I want to point out we shouldn’t strive to be an exact replica of Maker or Yearn’s models. They have big differences from us, namely that most of our contributors - and members - will not be devs but instead proficient in collecting, founding companies, finance, marketing, crypto, etc etc.
Lastly, fully agree with “Fingers” being Fingerprints’ working groups.
Completely agree on the flexibility of timeframes for working groups. And to your point on flexibility - I think it’s important that any system we vote into place be flexible enough to adapt to various situations - rigidity should be avoided IMO.
I am not sure I agree about the 1k tier though. Just because someone is contributing to a working group doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll be expected to work fulltime. I think there’s plenty of room for people to contribute to working groups on a sporadic, part time, or as-needed basis, which does kind of obviate the need for a 1k tier.
I personally think “Fingers” is a bit tacky, I prefer simply “working groups”, but I don’t mind it since the name is functionally irrelevant.
I’ve made edits to the proposal to make the “review terms” flexible and assignable in the working group formation proposal.
Thanks for updating the proposal @lucaspon !
Should we adjust the Multisig requirement of 2/4, as we could have Working Groups with less than 4 people?
Suggestion: “Each Working Group must have a dedicated multi-signature vault with at least 1/3 of its members as signers, with a minimum of 2 signers;” - We probably won’t have Working Groups with only one person.
Other than that, I think it’s good to go.
I don’t know, are we anticipating groups with less than 4?
1 out of 3 doesn’t make much sense since it provides less safety than not using a safe at all (any of the 3 people can take the money).
I think we could have Working Groups with less than 4 people at some point and we won´t have the safety issue you pointed out because I mentioned a minimum of 2 signers.
Like this proposal, great start towards decentralisation. However one key question: is this meant to replace the current design or augment it? i.e. do we keep the current salarie team members and form working groups alongside, or is this a complete replacement of everything we currently have?
This is meant to replace the current design.
I just wouldn’t say it’s a “complete” replacement, as the activities performed by the DAO and the team remain the same. This is just a more efficient and more decentralized organizational structure.
That makes sense.
So assuming this passes would the next step for various working groups to form and pitch for budget etc? And current paid team fall into one/more of those pitches?
That’s right, any member would be able to propose a new working group or join one and staff members would only get paid by working groups approved by the DAO.
Great, sounds like a nice clean setup, fully supportive of this evolution of the DAO