Arbitrum Offsite format: online vs IRL

[Griff]

@danielo You missed my main question:

@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 are the dates not set?

[Gonzacolo]

I like the idea of the off-site.

However, with three large conferences a year, plus GovHacks and additional in-person events, I often find there isn’t enough time dedicated to getting things done, analyzing outcomes, and iterating.

It feels like we’re rushing things.

That said, I think it would be useful to first run an online version (between DevCon and EthDenver), even though I understand it’s not ideal.

We could assess the results and, based on that feedback, organize something IRL next time if necessary.

[SEEDGov]

After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships” in that order on this proposal at the Snapshot vote.

Rationale

While we normally support this kind of initiatives, in this particular case we believe that there is a considerable potential overlap with the GovHack Devcon in Bangkok - Hack Humanity proposal and if we had to choose between both options, we would opt for the latter given that there are already positive precedents such as Brussels or Denver.

Having said that, it is worth mentioning that the offsites are contemplated in the proposal Establishing a DAO Events Budget for 2025 so it would be interesting that for next year both alternatives are proposed in the framework of this program if it is approved.

[paulofonseca]

I voted in the following order Drop idea and do nothing, Abstain, Online event, IRL/conference/no scholarships, IRL/conference/scholarships, IRL/separate/no scholarships, IRL/separate/scholarships because I believe the GovHack proposal to be a much better option for the DAO right now and also because the voting methodology chosen for this vote (Ranked Choice Voting / IRV) is not suitable for this type of decision.

[KlausBrave]

Cross-posting my answer on divergent vs convergent as a distinction to differentiate the proposals is a false equivalence and not valid :

ArbitrumDAO Off-site - Directional proposal

Divergent vs convergent are steps in facilitation of a longer process that starts online and continues in person. It is a false equivalence to attempt to differentiate the 2 proposals on this distinction as the final outputs for the Core track are convergent. The Core work starts in the online 4-week onramp, on the IRL day it starts with whole group work, breakout steps to avoid group think, then individual and small group work is assembled into whole group work with final convergent decisions…

@Griff

[Tane]

We vote for the proposal as followed on Snapshot.

We believe the GovHack will cover what this program has to provide in part and the only possible format to differentiate from the other offline event form is online events, but they have to be clearly designed, focused, promoted and executed with a much lower budget, which is challenging.

[ocandocrypto]

Uh, doesn’t this proposal overlap with GovHack?

I love the initiative, though, and I think these events are important for connecting and building relationships among us. In the past few weeks, I’ve been quite isolated from initiatives and have mostly taken a passive role after Brussels. I’d love to change that. I know I have control over it, and these activities make it much easier.

However, I feel like we’re already maxed out for this year, and an online version makes much more sense.

Now, I don’t want to sound rude, but isn’t $35,000 for running 4 sessions a bit much? I understand the experience and professionalism behind it, which I love, but when looking at Tally, I’d expect an adjustment.

With a team of people, we’ve been trying to run the onboarding working group, and it’s been challenging to secure even a portion of those funds for an effort that also aims to create impact within the DAO from a different perspective.

Lots to think about, but yes… for an online one, I’m in

[danielo]

I mean, it’s not an event that I’m proposing, it’s a strategic process. And whether as part of that an event happens at the same time of govhack or not… that’s flexible.

I was originally suggesting Devcon as a good date, but after speaking with multiple delegates, I find online works best. Now, if people still prefer IRL (the vote is about finding that), I have concerns about Devcon being a good date as they have requested for most side events to happen before and after, so people will have a lot of conflicting agendas.

We’re talking about pretty big decisions and in-depth conversations here, and that’s not viable when many key people can’t commit full-time for at least one day (or a few 2-3h sessions online).

[Tekr0x.eth]

Overall, I was very excited when I first heard about the new IRL offsite for the Arbitrum DAO. I think this type of event is super useful for both the existing gov team and introducing new members to Arbitrum DAO. My only concern (as expressed in the comments) was that the event would compete with the GovHack event by HackHumanty at the same time.

I will vote for the Online event. I still support the IRL event by Danielo and the team. I would love to see what a new format of IRL events would look like. I am excited to see what will be next from them.

[Euphoria]

The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.

We are voting FOR this proposal with a focus on an online event this time.

If the DAO is collaborating online and remotely, meeting offline once or several times a year for strategizing makes little sense. In-person events tend to become more exclusive, and this is a time to include rather than exclude people, especially for critical discussions like strategy.

The term ‘high-context’ participants is unclear and feel exclusive. A DAO that is still in the process of strategizing doesn’t necessarily have participants with more context than others. Anyone with the right intent can get up to speed quickly.

Similarly, focusing only on the Top 50 delegates based on monetary value is also limiting. There are individuals with equal, if not more, interest and skills who may not have high voting power but are equally valuable contributors.

@krst

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.

We agree with L2Beat on both points. While the event itself has been the focus, there’s not enough attention on getting the right people involved.

We are voting for the proposal in the following order:

[Bruce]

Given that there has already been a proposal for an offsite meeting, an online format would provide a more flexible and convenient option. It allows for greater accessibility and participation without the constraints of travel and logistics.

[cp0x]

Can someone explain how this works?

We have votes for different options, but I see that it shows 0 ARB votes for them, like

• IRL/conference/scholarships
• IRL/conference/no scholarships

[danielo]

Snapshot uses IRV rank choice algorithm, aka First Past The Post.

In this format, the option with the least votes gets rejected and those votes moved to people’s second choice. And so on, in rounds the least favoured option keeps getting eliminated until one option has 50%+ of the votes (at which point it’s the winner).

It’s not my favourite algorithm for rank choice and it would be amazing to have Condorcet which is more resilient to some anti patterns that can sometimes happen with IRV. But there’s no tool that does Condorcet with token voting so we’re working with what’s available.

[paulofonseca]

hey @cp0x this is a common confusion for this type of voting strategy. the voting strategy used for this snapshot proposal is “Ranked Choice Voting” or IRV (Instant Runoff Vote) and you can read more about it here and here.

I really don’t think this should have been the voting strategy chosen for this snapshot… it’s a sneaky voting strategy because it induces this kind of expectation that you just had and it has a bias for action, as in that it could perversely select an option when the desired outcome is no action. i think this snapshot should have been just a single choice vote and each voter would vote on their only 1st preference for what kind of event they would like to have.

[Ignas]

Excited to learn about the directions of our DAO and engaging with delegates and top projects. As a newcomer to Arbitrum’s DAO, I am curious in learning from these discussions and learning more about our collective development potential.

However, I would like to suggest considering an online format for the event rather than hosting it alongside Devcon Thailand or as private event. Given that Devcon-related side events might overlap with ours, an online event could offer greater flexibility and accessibility. Moreover, hosting the event online would significantly reduce costs and enable participation from a global audience, allow more members to engage.

I have a question regarding participation criteria. For newcomers like myself, the current requirements at least 20M ARB from endorsements or to be among the top 100 ARB holders may be challenging and time-consuming. Is there a possibility to lower these criteria or provide alternative pathways for participation? I believe that by making the event more inclusive, we can foster a broader range of contributions and perspectives, which would be valuable for our discussions and overall Arbitrum development.

Thank you for considering my suggestions, and I look forward to the opportunity to contribute and learn from the event.

[snowdot]

The results are in for the ArbitrumDAO Off-site off-chain proposal.

See how the community voted and more Arbitrum stats:

ArbitrumDAO Off-site

[cp0x]

Thank you,
I have studied this type of voting and even made a table of results and calculated the correctness myself.
However, apparently, the results should have been for 1 option, who won and others are displayed strangely.
The question is precisely in the display - we need to think about how to present it more clearly for users and give a suggestion to Snapshot to implement it.

[danielo]

IRV indeed has limitations but only one choice woud provide an even more inaccurate representation because it fails to account for the fact that multiple options can work for someone.

Unfortunately, there’s not an ideal tool available with token voting.

[danielo]

Ignas, thanks for your comment.

I would generally want to include as many voices as possible (we’re working on tooling to enable this in DAO’s btw, so I do mean it). That being said, here the objective is to define priorities and be able to make those explicit so the DAO can rally and focus on things that do stand a chance of getting approved in governance. (we saw how previous GovHack winners haven’t been approved on governance, and most proposals fail, so we’re trying to address that).

The risk of including more voices (especially those who are new, have less context, and are less trusted by the delegates) is that the extra people make it harder for the group to converge, and can have very valid opinions but ultimately those without token delegation are not the ones who decide.
It’s a lot easier to agree on something in a group of 3 than in a group of 9, and A LOT easier than in a group of 60+. So keeping a smaller group makes it easier to find agreement.

So the idea here has been more about leveraging those who the token holders have entrusted to decide on their behalf (i.e. the delegates), and a few key people who have been very engaged and are by now well known by the delegates, so we can quickly make some decisions and unstuck the DAO.

Having a clear strategy will then enable many others to get more involved in concrete initiatives, and for the next cycle, we can include more people who by then have a lot more context, trust, etc.

That being said, the process can also be made to include mechanisms to collect broader input and feedback. (and I do plan to include those), but the core discussion group is not designed to be as big as possible but to be as effective as possible (while still being very legitimately a representation of the chose governance model i.e. decisions by delegates).

Note that the gov model could be changed in the future if delegates is not what is desired (I have often mentioned the issues with the current gov model). However, the offsite is not meant to be a constitutional proposal, that’s a way bigger scope and not one I’m tackling right now but those who feel called to are welcome to open up that conversation.

And if you feel you can significantly contribute to the discussion, I do invite you to share why and I’ll do my best to put this in front of the delegates so they can decide.

[jameskbh]

Given the context (2 IRL proposals for devcon), my first choice on this one was an online event. I think both initiatives have their merits, let’s see how the online formtlat goes.