Voted For: I still think that we lack general and strategic discussion about the DAO. Many of us are present at multiple calls and meetings on a weekly basis but do we really take time a think about the big picture or think about general issues that we face in ArbitrumDAO? I don’t think so. An event like this could help us to that. Also, let’s not forget about new people joining the DAO. This type of project could be a good insight into the DAO and more general stuff. I think it’s worth trying it out.
Voting against on Tally. At the temp-check phase I voted for the IRL event as I think that in person off-sites can lead to better outcomes and results. Many pointed out that the cost isn’t that high and that even if it’s online, we can give it a try. However I agree with Jojo here. We already have many calls and meetings and I personally think that this off-site, if organized online, won’t be much impactful.
1 Like
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to “AGAINST” on this proposal at the Tally vote.
Rationale
We would like to begin by clarifying that when voting for this proposal on Snapshot, we were initially not inclined to support the IRL option due to its overlap with GovHack. Based on this, our primary choices were Against or Abstain, with the Online Event being our third option. On the latter point, we agree with @JoJo that the current schedule of calls and Working Groups in Arbitrum is already quite busy, which could hinder the success of this initiative.
1 Like
You know the GovHack event is no longer happening, right?
voting Against the current onchain proposal because the success of this format hinders on the skill and context of the facilitator(s) for the online format, and no facilitator(s) have been pitched to the DAO to execute on this. Therefore, I fear this money will be wasted.
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 in Tally voting.
The perspective shared by us during the temp check remains unchanged, and support for this proposal continues. The idea of focusing the online event on defining the DAO’s priorities for the next six months is interesting and we’re open to trying it.
Additionally, this initiative could open new doors for more structured collaboration within the DAO, helping identify key focus areas that may have been overlooked. It also presents a valuable opportunity to engage a broader group of participants, fostering more inclusive and diverse discussions on the DAO’s strategic direction.
We’re voting AGAINST the offsite DAO event proposal. Online gatherings lack the unique benefits of in-person interactions. Virtual fatigue from existing calls and meetings risks diminishing this event’s impact. While cost-effective, an online format may not justify the time investment or yield meaningful outcomes beyond current DAO activities.
I’m voting FOR on Tally.
There are many reasons. Gov Hack is not happening anymore, and on the other hand, @danielo really took the time to implement all the feedback from the delegates. With his vast experience in the ecosystem and in coordination, I truly believe that an initiative like this is positive for the DAO.
Not only that, but it also brings great leadership alongside participation. Additionally, the requested amount is more than reasonable.
We’re used to investing millions without expecting outputs, but when it comes to efforts that actually contribute to the long-term coordination of the DAO, we decide to step back 
Seriously?
2 Likes
Blockworks Research will be voting AGAINST this proposal.
We’re not sure about the quality an online event could bring. Moreover, while we originally expressed support over any type of meeting for the DAO we do think that an offsite lends better to coordination and cooperation among delegates. Online meetings are difficult to measure for performance and easily subjected to delays.
Tally vote: ended up Abstaining. Although supportive on the temp-check, value was unclear to move forward.