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 together.
Facilitation methodologies such as the double diamond of design and 1-2-4-ALL from Liberating Structures allow for the best of divergent and convergent thinking, and individual, small group and whole group facilitation to be exercised across a series of activities:
Just cast my vote on Snapshot. I’m backing the IRL event with scholarships as my main choice because I’ve seen firsthand how powerful in-person governance gatherings can be. These events create a space to foster stronger relationships and drive real progress in ways that are hard to replicate online. Also, by offering scholarships, we ensure that a diverse group of voices is included.
Hey Danielo, thank you for coming up with some news about this proposal! I’m only re-entering the discussion at this stage, but I really appreciate the way you all made it more concrete. I will be voting in favor of the option “IRL/conference/scholarship”. I think irl events have better outcomes and results, and the fact of organizing it next to major conferences will slim costs down and allow more delegates to be present.
We’re voting FOR exploring an ArbitrumDAO off-site event, leaning towards the IRL option with scholarships.
Let’s face it, nothing beats face-to-face interactions for building real connections and getting stuff done. I’ve seen it firsthand in tech - when people get together in person, ideas flow and problems get solved.
Throwing in scholarships is a smart move. It’ll bring in fresh perspectives and keep us from becoming an echo chamber for “delegates with big tires” only.
We like how we’re not rushing into this. Getting everyone’s input first shows we’re serious about doing this right. It’s a low-risk way to potentially supercharge our governance game.
=== COMMENTING ON PROPOSAL: ===
I believe the ArbitrumDAO off-site event presents an opportunity to improve collaboration and decision-making within the DAO. Although there are some concerns about organizing in-person events, especially given the overlap with other initiatives like GovHack, I see value in starting with an online format to ensure maximum participation. In-person events can be beneficial, but this proposal, by suggesting an online event as a starting point, allows for broader involvement from delegates who might not be able to attend physical events.
It’s also important to carefully manage budgeting and logistics to avoid any overlaps or inefficiencies.
In the future I hope this proposal has more consistency to it and we add some consistency to these strategic initiatives.
I didn’t thought the online option would win, so I didn’t craft a proper feedback for snapshot, and feel like I should add some here in Tally.
Voting against. I’ll be really honest here, we all live in a series of infinite calls and meetings, both public (with the arb calendar) and private (talk to delegates, working groups etc). I don’t think an online event with a 2 workshops of half day each, plus async alignment, will be successful, because presence is likely gonna be scattered and inconsistent.
I would be REALLY HAPPY to be proven wrong here, and if it passes I hope it will be something extremely useful to which I will do my best to attend
As a delegate, I support the GovHack Core Series proposal, which is actionable and on the ground, with offline meetings that deepen ecological cohesion. A thousand times online is better than one face-to-face chat, before having a beer and talking about something COOL.
Proposals are strategic and long-term, bringing key stakeholders together for in-depth discussion and decision-making helps drive high-impact proposals and improve governance efficiency. By organising regular face-to-face high impact events. I’m glad you’ve come up with this proposal.
Of course I have some suggestions and questions
broader engagement opportunities: while this proposal focuses on engagement with existing stakeholders, I recommend considering pathways for emerging contributors and community members to participate. By adding more online events or open discussion sessions throughout the year, it may be possible to better identify potential newcomers without diminishing the depth of the core strategy discussions, and of course it may be more interesting to be able to fund some of the very promising developers and projects to participate.
Assessment of budget and activity effectiveness: The budget in the proposal is relatively large, especially as it relates to venues, logistics, and scholarships for each event. In order to ensure that the budget is reasonable, is it possible to provide a more detailed cost breakdown and performance evaluation mechanism? For example, through more specific cost-benefit analyses, it could be ensured that the use of resources for each event would achieve the intended strategic objectives and provide continuous support for the development of DAO.
“I think it’s worth exploring an offsite. The current DAO decision-making process is a bit stuck, and we lack a platform for deeper communication. This could be a good opportunity to bring everyone together, either in person or online, to discuss the big picture and organizational design. No need to rush into the details yet—if people agree, we can refine things step by step. This vote is just to see if there’s interest, not a commitment to execute right away. If you think it’s a good idea, let’s chat and figure out how to make it happen.”
gm, voted FOR on Tally.
As these are online workshops ( I voted for an IRL event on Snapshot), a basic success metric will be attendance as @JoJo mentioned.
I’ll do my best to participate as much as I can.
Just voted FOR on Tally. Totally get where @JoJo is coming from about the online event being challenging: IRL does tend to have more impact, and async alignment can be a bit of a headache. However, imo the budget isn’t crazy high, and for that amount, I think it’s worth the shot. There’s potential for valuable outcomes from this initiative. I would’ve loved to participate too, but it seems I don’t meet the eligibility criteria for the top 50 ARB delegates.
I voted FOR this proposal on Tally. I continue to hold the view I outlined when I voted FOR at the temp check stage. Focusing the online event on defining the DAO’s priorities for the next six months is an interesting idea and one I would like to try. To be honest, it may simply be impossible to define the DAO’s priorities over a meaningful period of time. However, the cost of this experiment is low, so I think it’s worth giving it a shot.
you can still ask delegates to endorse you if you think you have significant value to contribute. There will also be time for comments and open discussion outside of workshops, and there attendance is not capped
While i was in favor of a physical meetup, I don’t think a virtual format is going to deliver sufficient RoI for $20k. Especially since I don’t see a plan for getting the major delegates to attend and be a part of it
The FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain Team voted AGAINST the proposal on Tally.
We pushed back on the Snapshot vote to drop the event, thinking that the GovHacks at conferences would suffice. We think that a set of virtual calls and events would be helpful in planning the DAO’s priorities for the next 6 months. But looking at the cost breakdown, we don’t believe some of the items are justified - like $150/hour for the planning/summary process or paying $500 for notetakers. For this reason, we voted against. Otherwise, we totally support scheduling medium-term alignment and planning sessions with the most important stakeholders in the DAO.
