Arbitrum Offsite format: online vs IRL

[danielo]

Please see my comparison between govhack and this proposal here:

Arbitrum Offsite format: online vs IRL

Thanks for the question @jameskbh I think in essence both proposals are rather different, but it might not make sense to fund them both at this point in time. Where I see the difference: Objective: Hack Humanity requests funding for delivering events and a yearly salary for Klaus, where the focus is on the IRL component. RnDAO’s proposal focuses on a strategic process of alignment (which could be piloted fully online or mixed online and IRL, as per the delegates’ choice). In that sense, the…

[Tekr0x.eth]

I read this reply several times and still don’t understand it. It seems like a very general comparison. You mentioned that RnDAO focuses on a ‘strategic process of alignment.’ What does this mean? What exactly will we be doing at this event besides meeting in person? Could you please be a bit more specific?

[danielo]

The point is that precisely it’s not just the “event”. Which btw could be online or offline. The point is to ensure that the “process” (which includes an event but is not only an event) delivers on the objective of advancing strategic alignment and thus unblocks multiple key initatives.

We already had meetings in person, we already tested the govhack format, we’ve had sense making processes (like the one PluralityLabs, now Thrive, did). These were good exercises but how much progress did we get after? non of the proposals initiated in govhack got approved, the plurality labs process didn’t lead to a DAO-wide agreed strategy, etc. We’re learning from those previous experiences so that the focus is not on having an event but an output.

What I see as critical for ensuring a quality output is facilitating the process end to end. That includes:

• aligning on the agenda, which means ensuring all key stakeholders have bought in and understand exactly what and why. There’s a lot of work that goes here as the DAO is fairly distributed with the foundation, offchain labs, service providers, many different delegates, etc. They can agree to have an event but that’s not the same as ensuring everyone is aligned on the critical discussion and all the context is shared.
• then discussing the topic (online or IRL) in a way that is designed purposely for said topic and not generic. So we avoid conflicting objectives like broader community activation, or fitting around a specific number of days, or a type of venue, or anything else. Here we have the focus to design the format fully around the objective of getting the best output for strategy (other initiatives can focus on community onboarding, etc.).
• finally, follow up on priorities and if needed draft a proposal with the discussed strategic priorities/agreements and pass it through a vote to ratify. That means there are likely calls, workshops, discussions, etc. both before and after the main workshop. That includes the snapshot vote going live this Thursday which is part of the process of collectively agreeing on the details so there’s buy-in and people show up.

[derbygoldeth]

Offsite is a good initiative for engagement, I suggest it to be kept on dates which are not booked for events if you want to be productive and get benefit beyond just face to the name kind of thing.

[PennBlockchain]

Given that Hack Humanity recently put up a forum discussion on setting up 3 annual GovHack events at major conferences, we voted against this proposal. We believe having 3 major in person events a year is more than sufficient given that we all live in different places in the world. I believe there should be more coordination between these 2 organizing parties, rather than aim to solve the same problem of coming up with proposals and strategic plans.

[JoJo]

Voting as per the below

I’m in favour of meeting people, but with a series of caveat.
IF we have to do it, to me would be key to have it on major conferences: despite all the fun and giggles, this event or conferences are de facto job travels, and would like to keep it at minimum if possible.
I am also not a fan of scholarships in a case like this one, so it was not my first choice.
As a final note, I think online would not be meaningful nor different from the calls we do on a day to day basis.

Would also like to add that while i can generally support the idea, a potential tally vote to me is dependent on the initiatives that will be moved forward by the GovHack team, that I would favour over this one due to the previous track record.

[KlausBrave]

GovHack has an updated proposal for Devcon only Nov 8-10.
We believe this to be the best format to fulfil multiple needs of the DAO in a single IRL event + online facilitation before and after.

This proposal starts with a Core/Offsite day, then the Open Hackathon and Community Days.
This redesign can achieve all outcomes we have received feedback on from delegates and new talent alike.
It also includes a dedicated online programme of 4-week OnRamp activity and 4-week post-GovHack support programme which addresses a common refrain; how do keep all this amazing energy activated IRL and have people stay with Arbitrum.

Lastly it’s much cheaper, we have just completed real budgeting with suppliers here in Bangkok.

Check it out, Snapshot voting incoming…

Cross-posting here to the latest version of the proposal focus on Devcon in Bangkok Nov 8-10 only for now (longer-term plans will be handled in a separate proposal):

GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity

Abstract GovHack A lean, mean, highly optimised machine. GovHack is a process, not an event. This 3rd iteration addresses the 2 primary critiques constraining maximal value generation from GovHack for ArbitrumDAO. At root cause there is lack of process and opportunity for coordination and alignment for decision-making on vision, strategy, and top priority goals. This means less proposals hit the mark as they could, and new talent churns and is not retained. Lack of dedicated post-GovHack su…

Let us know what you think.

[PGov]

We strongly support the idea of hosting the off-site event in-person alongside a major conference, with sponsorships to fund travel scholarships for attendees. Holding the event around an established conference, like DevCon, offers logistical and strategic advantages by ensuring the presence of key delegates, stakeholders, and contributors already in the region. This reduces overall costs while maximizing engagement and turnout.

Sponsoring travel for those not already attending ensures that valuable perspectives from diverse stakeholders are included, especially individuals who might otherwise be excluded due to financial constraints. In-person events foster deeper collaboration, trust-building, and stronger alignment on key issues—critical elements often lacking in online-only interactions.

We think there could be something set up around including members that don’t receive delegate incentives as they are already being compensated in some ways by the DAO, and instead preferring those that aren’t for the first sponsorships. Combining both an IRL event and hybrid options (for virtual participation) also allows for broad participation while prioritizing high-quality discussions and outcomes.

[Frisson]

I voted in the following order on the temp check proposal. My preference is to do an IRL event next to a major conference and provide limited scholarships for a small number of participants who would not otherwise have funding to attend. I voted Abstain first because I support GovHack’s proposal for Devcon and would like to see this initiative as a collaborative effort with GovHack rather than a competing one.

[WintermuteGovernance]

We have voted to Abstain which is in line with our other votes regarding event sponsorships, as we are not 100% sold on these types of costs being fronted by the DAO’s treasury.

All other votes are ranked accordingly:

Nonetheless, it certainly makes a lot of sense to host something like this alongside major conferences where you’d expect a lot more attendees. We also agree with others that sponsoring scholarships has inherent issues about who gets selected and whether or not that person would already be attending the major conference. If the DAO approves scholarships, a more fair approach would be to offer a flat rebate to all scholarships to make it cheaper for them to attend and not cover the full amount of their travels given obvious differences in costs based on a scholar’s location.

Lastly, we certainly don’t think that there should be an overlap between this event and the proposed GovHack event.

[danielo]

@WintermuteGovernance

we certainly don’t think that there should be an overlap between this event and the proposed GovHack event

thanks for the comments. Could you please clarify what you mean by this? I’m not sure I understand

[krst]

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.

We are voting FOR this proposal, but our support is conditional and limited only to an online event.

To begin with, we want to clarify that for us, the most important factor of this whole discussion is the value that we might be able to get from hosting a DAO offsite as the one described rather than the cost associated with hosting one. That said, we also want to note that although we’ve had several meetings in the past that could be considered successful, they were nowhere near a point that would justify spending as much as it’s budgeted in this proposal for them.

That isn’t necessarily just a function of the meetings or the people facilitating them. Instead, we might not be in a position as an organization where the DAO can capture the full extent of the value such a meeting could bring.

Ultimately, the goal isn’t to have an event just for the sake of having an event. The goal is to have an event that can push the needle forward and deliver value that would be hard, if not impossible, for us to get differently. Although not directly comparable to an IRL meeting, an online event could help us test the waters in the sense of what we get from it.

With all that in mind, we still believe that the requested budget, even for the facilitation of an online event, is too high relative to the value we believe we’ll be able to get from it. We can’t afford to spend ~$10k per online workshop. While we understand there’s a cost for planning and facilitating, it should be way lower than what is asked right now.

Furthermore, we’d like to note that the success of this meeting depends largely not only on the organizer putting enough effort to make the event successful but also on the participants - even the best-facilitated event will not be fruitful if not enough right people attend it or if those people are not prepared enough to use this time efficiently.

[paulofonseca]

@krst

even the best-facilitated event will not be fruitful if not enough right people attend it or if those people are not prepared enough to use this time efficiently.

100% agree. this is always the make or break of any facilitated workshop. at least from my experience doing this kind of thing for the last 15 years or so, in multiple tech industries. sometimes, not having a single person in the room undermines the whole effort, and sometimes having just 1 wrong person in the room is catastrophic. that’s why I believe this type of facilitation needs to be able to control the attendance to be effective, and it’s kind of an art form for a facilitator to be able to bring together the right types of peoples in the right amounts into a facilitated workshop, and then be able to facilitate their work in a productive way.

if the above is true, then the question becomes:
is it palatable, for a DAO, to have a workshop where some people can attend and some don’t? and how do we decide that, as a DAO?

[Gabriel]

I believe offsite events present a great opportunity for delegates to get to know each other and collaborate moving forward. Many top-performing companies conduct offsites, and these events have proven to enhance productivity and team cohesion. Additionally, offering some funding for certain delegates is acceptable, in my opinion, as we want to encourage participation from everyone, not just those who are well-funded.

[juanbug]

On behalf of the UADP: When evaluating the options for the Arbitrum offsite, we considered all the alternatives, and here’s our current opinions/preference:

1. IRL/Conference/Scholarships: This option provides the greatest opportunity for in-person interaction, networking, and relationship building. After going to a few of these across defi, I can definitively say that IRL is so much more inpactful that online or hybrid, its unrivaled. Offering scholarships, makes sense, but should be offered to smaller teams, or maybe to teams that aren’t a part of the delegate rewards program.
2. IRL/Conference/No Scholarships: Same reasoning, get’s rid of scholarships which is logical.
3. Online Event: This is the most accessible option, main reason here is it’s cheap.
4. IRL/Separate/Scholarships: Not the biggest fan as it would likely be much higher costs. Still prefer to nothing.
5. IRL/Separate/No Scholarships: Less available as many delegates would have to go on their own dime to something totally out of way.
6. Drop Idea and Do Nothing: This option avoids any expenses, coordination, or risk altogether. However, it also means missing out on the potential for engagement, collaboration, and community building. Doing nothing could be perceived negatively, especially given the importance of communication and networking within decentralized governance.
7. Abstain

[Griff]

I don’t understand @danielo, the proposal is that we do an in person event at the same time as @KlausBrave’s Gov Hack?

Or is it going to fund GovHack?

Or are the dates not set?

In general I would vote:

But this proposal is really confusing, from what i can tell is that it would be competing with GovHack for the same dates and I don’t think that makes sense, I think GovHack will be a great event (even though I will only be able to attend the last of 3 days) and I wouldn’t want to support a second big gathering at devcon.

If my assumptions are correct, than I will vote:

[danielo]

For context, we had been planning the offsite before Klaus’s proposal as we started discussing it since Brussels. Also, the offsite is simply a new format proposed for something we’ve been working on since January (when we started creating the strategy framework and then during the first GovHack we proposed a strategy assembly).

I see the objective of the GovHack and what we’re doing as being very different. The GovHack is more of a community event, including many people, discussing many things.

The offsite is meant to be a more convergent process, so we can define priorities, and align around what to focus on. The event component itself is only a part of it. We’ve already been doing calls with delegates to understand priorities and we ran the survey to start to align on the agenda. There’s significant work around follow up and ultimately it’s all about reaching alignment.

I don’t think advancing strategic prioritisation can be achieved with the current GovHack format.
However, both events could be combined, having one day focused on ‘offsite’ during the GovHack.
As I mentioned to @KlausBrave on telegram, we’re happy with a setup where we can facilitate a day focused on the strategy work and they’re doing everything else.

[Curia]

We voted to abstain on this proposal because we support GovHack’s initiative for Devcon and would like to see the offsite event integrated with their efforts rather than as a competing one. Our preference is for an IRL event held alongside a major conference, but without scholarships. We believe that a collaborative approach with GovHack would foster stronger engagement and align governance activities with key community events, leading to more meaningful and productive outcomes.

[CastleCapital]

We are in support of further exploring this initiative for an Arbitrum Offsite Event, recognizing the potential for it to drive collaboration and strategic growth within the community. However, we view this proposal as still in the exploratory stage and not yet near completion, especially in comparison to the more developed GovHack proposal currently live.

Key Points:

• Strategic Focus: We commend the proposal’s focus on strategic outcomes, which is vital for ensuring the event delivers tangible value to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
• Selection Process & Preparation: While the initiative is promising, we have concerns about how the right participants will be selected and whether the attendees will be adequately prepped to contribute meaningfully. A clear framework is needed to ensure that those chosen are aligned with the event’s strategic goals and prepared for effective participation.
• Exploration & Refinement: We encourage further refinement of the proposal, especially regarding participant selection, event objectives, and ensuring that the right people are involved to maximize the event’s impact.

Overall, while we support the initiative’s continued exploration, our focus remains on supporting more fully developed proposals, such as the GovHack proposal, which is closer to execution.

[BlockworksResearch]

We are in support of exploring this initiative, and believe that an in person event is the best situation for delegates moving forward. IRL events are infinitely more impactful. Anecdotally, I myself have had better experiences, thought exchanges, and just an overall better presence when attending an event IRL. Online events lose that touch, substantially.

On the note of scholarships, it makes sense to offer them, though there should be a control to offer them to small teams instead, maybe to those closest to the delegate rewards program (runner-ups?). Aside from this, we understand the reasoning to get rid of scholarships, though it makes delegate lock-in a more prominent issue. Otherwise, these are our rankings currently:

1. IRL with scholarships
2. IRL no scholarships
3. Online event
4. IRL separate
5. IRL separate no scholarships
6. Drop idea
7. Abstain