# \[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp **URL:** \ **Category:** Archived Proposals\ **Tags:** proposal, governance\ **Created:** [November 18, 2024, 5:17pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546 "2024-11-18T17:17:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tekr0x.eth](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tekr0x.eth/32/2289_2.png) [@Tekr0x.eth](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tekr0x.eth)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2024, 6:45am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/21 "2024-11-20T06:45:08Z")
The Governance Bootcamp will bring new delegates into ArbitrumDAO, so I support the idea. I do think we could do better with the stipends. From my understanding, participants make quite big-time investments, and the stipends seem too low. I suggest increasing the stipends to make sure we attract high-quality delegates. If we can help them with a bigger stipend, then they could easily reach 50k ARB voting power and potentially join the DIP program. This is how we know they would stick around and become active in all aspects of the DAO. ---
**Author:** ![WinVerse](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/winverse/32/10523_2.png) [@WinVerse](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/WinVerse)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2024, 2:14pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/22 "2024-11-21T14:14:36Z")
Hey @RikaGoldberg This is a good proposal. Really love how you are thinking about the working group and workshops for these analysts. My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows? You said something about inviting those not selected to participate in the next cohort but that still leads to the same possibility of not enough protocols willing to participate. Is there a plan beyond matching these fellows to protocols? ---
**Author:** ![Gabriel](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/gabriel/32/12436_2.png) [@Gabriel](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Gabriel)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2024, 3:21pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/23 "2024-11-21T15:21:52Z")
After hearing @ocandocrypto on the call, I think this is a great proposal. I also tend to agree with the comments in the call that maybe we could align some incentives to help retain good candidates, such as having some ARB delegated to the top 3 or 5. I would also like to see what success looks like and/or what the KPIs for V2 are. ---
**Author:** ![0x\_ultra](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0x_ultra/32/236_2.png) [@0x\_ultra](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0x_ultra)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 5:09am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/24 "2024-11-22T05:09:52Z")
Hey @RikaGoldberg thank you for the proposal. I read the retrospective from the previous version and I really appreciate the way you integrated those key lessons to improve the current one. I think that we should give the possibility to newcomers to both get familiar with the DAO and to be connected to protocols or delegates, this bootcamp seems to go in that direction. I just have a few questions here (some only out of curiosity) after going through the proposal and the final report: - I read the feedback from participants and the available data on the results of the program, however I would like to know if you could provide more info about the long-term results of the program. How many participants have actually actively entered and integrated the DAO? How many took part in it and then didn’t pursue? I’m asking this cause I think that it’s a key element to evaluate the success of the previous version - during the bi-weekly call it was mentioned that V2 wasn’t going to focus on newcomers only, aiming to bring diversity among applicants. My question here is: how do you intend to diversify levels in order for everyone to make progress? - I also echo some other comments concerning the selection process. How do you intend to provide transparency? Do you have specific criterias and scores? - here ([Onboarding Pilot Program: Final Report (Milestone 3)](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046)) you say that “we realized that writing a proposal may not be the most effective final deliverable for Fellowships. \*\*\*\*[…]Therefore it’s likely unreasonable to expect that newcomers, with very little context, will be able to write a quality proposal in only three months.”, however I see that this was kept among the practical exercises. It’s actually just a detail but I was interested in knowing why (or maybe you just require participants to draft it without being a high-quality one) - What’s your plan to help this bootcamp get visibility? Do you intend to make any changes or improvements compared to the previous version? Apart from these questions, I think that this initiative is really interesting and I’m looking forward for it to be approved! ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:16pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/25 "2024-11-22T20:16:08Z")
> [@Tane](#): > > - what is the ultimate outcome of making this program successful? It would be great to identify what state this program is going to achieve in a quantified measurement. The reason we asked this is that we are not certain what actual value the V1 provided. > - if possible, partial compensations need to be paid out based on the defined outcome above. We are concerned that the program would become just an educational content for the sake of the education. Hi Tane, thanks for your questions. 1. The ultimate outcome of this program is to onboard high-quality and diverse governance participants into the DAO. We also anticipate increased governance participation from Protocols that have previously been less active. 2. Can you please clarify what you mean by “partial compensations need to be paid out?" ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:22pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/26 "2024-11-22T20:22:30Z")
> [@cp0x](#): > > - Why is the starting set only 20 people? Why not take more students, they do not require more funds, because only the top 10 will receive them. > **I suggest increasing the number of students**. > - Tell me, how will you **retain these delegates** when the scholarship funds run out? > For many, $3,000 is a significant amount for which people will work, but when it runs out, it is unclear why they will remain in management, especially since Tally will need to pay for gas from their own money for voting. > - It seems to me that it is necessary to outline the rules for **who cannot participate** in this program - these are delegates who are already receiving funds for management (DIP 1, 1.5) > - It is also interesting to understand why the Management Specialist can only be one of those who have completed this seminar? > At the moment, we have a large number of delegates who are ready to teach and I know my business, I think, quite well. > **I think we should give them the opportunity to apply for this position** Hi cp0x, thank your for your questions. 1. While admitting more people doesn’t necessarily require additional funding, it does demand more resources and attention from our team. As a result, we’ve decided to accept a manageable number of Governance Analysts to ensure we can provide them with a “white glove” experience. 2. We are actively exploring mechanisms to retain Fellows within the DAO. However, as outlined in the proposal, _“the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.”_ With that said, we are committed to providing guidance and support to Fellows throughout. If you have ideas for how to retain Fellows, we would love to hear them. 3. Thanks for flagging this. 4. To clarify, when you say “Management Specialist”, do you mean the Course Facilitator? ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:27pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/27 "2024-11-22T20:27:42Z")
> [@duokongcrypto](#): > > 1、 regarding the transparency of the budget and the high costs: > The proposal mentions very high compensation and course development costs for WG members, e.g. $49,000 for Rika and $30,000 for all other members. Does it take into account the long-term reuse value of these courses and content? Also, what are the changes and improvements in this cost compared to V1? Can you provide a clearer comparison? > 2. Fairness of the participant screening and evaluation mechanism: > How can the screening and post-scoring of the 20 participants avoid subjectivity or internal preferences? Is there a more objective scoring mechanism, or is there a third-party review to ensure fairness? Also, I noticed that each Governance Fellow is awarded $3,000, but what is the specific value to the DAO of the final 10 selected? Is it an increase in the quality of proposals or more active participants? Is there a clear quantitative measure, rather than just some simple data as mentioned in V1? > 3. Suggestions for incentives: > Could the $3,000 incentive be more diversified? Governance is long-term and requires a certain amount of delegation and responsibility. In order to avoid the incentive to become a formalized exercise, I would suggest a stepped reward model, for example: > > - 1st place: $5,000 > - Second through fifth place: $3,500 > - Sixth through tenth place: $2,000. > - Eleventh through fifteenth place: $1,500. > - Sixteenth through twentieth place: $1,000. Hi @duokongcrypto, thanks for your suggestions/questions. 1. Yes, we plan to record all sessions and make them, along with the course materials, publicly accessible. Regarding V1 costs, we received a $10,000 Questbook grant to run the Program for 3 months. 2. To avoid subjectivity in grading exercises, we have created a Rubric (as seen in the Proposal). Regarding the specific value to the DAO of the 10 selected Fellows, we are actively working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g, commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions for KPIs, we would love to hear them! 3. Thanks for the suggestion. We will definitely consider it. ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:30pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/28 "2024-11-22T20:30:23Z")
> [@duokongcrypto](#): > > Firstly, we should agree on implementing retrospective compensation policies for onboarding participants who invest significant time and effort to become active DAO members. However, I still have concerns: if, after extensive training, we are unable to retain these representatives, what would be the point of this initiative? I would like to hear your personal thoughts on this, Rika. Agreed that retention is important, and we are actively thinking about mechanisms to put in place to retain Fellows. However, as we wrote in the proposal “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” Ultimately, it will be up to each Fellow to find a role in the DAO after the Fellowship ends, but we will be there to provide guidance and support.” If you have ideas for retention mechanisms, we would love to hear them! ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:33pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/29 "2024-11-22T20:33:35Z")
> [@Larva](#): > > My only question is whether the recruitment for this proposal is limited to Delegates, non-Delegates, or if both are eligible? We will be seeking applicants who express an interest and commitment to doing Governance work, therefore they will likely already be Delegates or strongly interested in becoming a Delegate — individually or with an organization. ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:34pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/30 "2024-11-22T20:34:37Z")
> [@ZER8](#): > > What is the selection criteria of the Governance Fellows? 😃 As written in the proposal, “We will be seeking applicants with specific characteristics, including a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn. Furthermore, applicants should have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s.” If there is other criteria that you think could be relevant, please let us know! ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:35pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/31 "2024-11-22T20:35:17Z")
> [@cat.kitty.it](#): > > Could you please share how one can apply for the program? Also, where will announcements about the application process be published? Thanks! Thank you. We will announce the program and details about how to apply in Q1 2025. ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:37pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/32 "2024-11-22T20:37:48Z")
> [@jameskbh](#): > > We are asking for possible candidates to go through a 4-months selection process for 2 months of subsidies. Is it possible to grant something to the 20 selected members? (like 500/month) > > And I believe that there is a typo in the spreadsheet, as the stipend is meant for the “Governance Fellows”, correct? We are open to exploring the possibility of providing participants with an additional small stipend during the program. However, our rationale for not doing so is based on the value we are already offering: fully subsidized training and opportunities for participants. We believe this intangible benefit should be considered when evaluating whether an additional stipend is necessary. Yes, that was a typo. Fixed, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 8:54pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/33 "2024-11-22T20:54:56Z")
> [@pedrob](#): > > Now, my first question is: who is the program aimed at, and what would be the “job description” these workshops are targeting? What is the demand for these skills? The program is aimed at individuals who have a high-level of familiarity with Ethereum and L2s and aspire to work as Governance Analysts, which means they need to demonstrate a high-aptitude for writing and reading comprehension. As far as soft skills, we will be seeking applicants with a positive mindset, an ability to work well with others, an aptitude to engage in healthy debate, and an eagerness to learn. We believe there is significant demand for these skills, as many protocols listed on [Tally](https://www.tally.xyz/gov/arbitrum/delegates) could benefit from increased governance participation. > [@pedrob](#): > > From the content, it seems the program provides a general overview of the DAO and its current initiatives, which would make the participant someone knowledgeable about the Arbitrum DAO context. > > However, if that person later wants to join as a governance analyst in a protocol or a professional delegate team, would these isolated pieces of knowledge be sufficient for that role? Maybe that’s not the goal, and I’m overthinking it. But in that case, what is the objective? Yes, you’re right that ideally we expect Governance Fellows to contribute to a Protocol or a Professional Delegate team. Which is why we have designed the Program to be a combination of theory & practice. If you have more suggestions, in addition to the ones you already provided, for how to better prepare Governance Analysts, we would love to hear them! > [@pedrob](#): > > Has this already been discussed and guaranteed? What happens if you can’t find 10 protocols that are interested? Yes, @ocandocrypto is actively engaging with protocols, and we’re also receiving support from the Foundation in these efforts. Protocols interested in collaborating are welcome to reach out to us directly. > [@pedrob](#): > > Governance analysts and DAO leads are key roles in protocols today, although many protocols don’t have one yet. For this reason, I suggest including the following mandatory essay: _Why is the role of a DAO lead/governance analyst important in a protocol? How can they operate, and what benefits do they bring? Additionally, ask the participants to provide a concrete case they are personally interested in._ Great, thank you! We will definitely consider it. > [@pedrob](#): > > I see a potential flaw in having the DAO fully finance the fellow. The protocol might lack the necessary skin in the game to ensure the fellow learns and receives adequate attention. It might be more interesting to move toward a shared system where protocols cover part of the cost or even commit to reimbursing the DAO if they later hire the fellow. Thanks for this feedback. We will consider it. > [@pedrob](#): > > I would like to see a clear disclosure of what percentage of the budget each participant will receive. We included this disclosure in the Budget spreadsheet here [Arbitrum Onboarding WG Budget V1](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MNFl_Uko0tY5kiG1F4eoLbYeA7EU5W5RDb_RBKTJ9ec/edit?gid=1283170482#gid=1283170482). > [@pedrob](#): > > The first onboarding program had well-defined quantitative and qualitative KPIs, which allowed for conclusions that shaped this proposal—a very positive aspect. I believe KPIs for this initiative should also be determined before moving forward. Agreed. We are working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g., commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions, please let us know! > [@pedrob](#): > > How do you envision retention within the DAO or Arbitrum for these fellows? How did retention work in v1, and what mechanisms do you think could be implemented to ensure the effort and resources invested in teaching are not quickly diluted? Agreed that retention is important, and we are actively thinking about mechanisms to put in place to retain Fellows. However, as we wrote in the proposal “the Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.” Ultimately, it will be up to each Fellow to find a role in the DAO after the Fellowship ends, but we will be there to provide guidance and support. With that said, if you have suggestions for retention mechanisms, please let us know! > [@pedrob](#): > > Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest. > [@pedrob](#): > > Lastly, I would like to suggest that the proposal opens up opportunities for other DAO participants interested in taking on the proposed roles. While I understand the reasons why continuity between v1 and v2 makes sense, this proposal aims to include new participants in the DAO, yet we don’t practice that inclusion when it comes to execution. We have many valuable DAO members who might be interested in taking on some of these roles—of course, only if suitable candidates express interest. Yes, we agree and welcome existing DAO members to apply. However we are mindful of @cp0x’s comment about creating rules for who is ineligible to apply e.g, delegates who are participating in DIP. We will need to think through this more. ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 9:08pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/34 "2024-11-22T21:08:23Z")
> [@kuiclub](#): > > - The budget mentioned 17.8w USD, which is mainly spent on labor cost and course design. It is suggested to add a “Success Case Tracking” section, for example, to list out what the governance participants developed in V1 have actually contributed to DAO. Let everyone know where the money was spent and whether it was worth it. > - In the course content, I can see, for example, “how to create a proposal”, “the foundation of the governance forum”, I think it is not suitable for everyone, I personally suggest that the course be divided into levels, such as beginner and advanced classes, designed for participants with different backgrounds, such as my kind of Newcomers do not have so much money I have the number of ARBs required by the proposal, that is not very meaningful to me, I need more is how to look at the real purpose behind the proposal, can be targeted to the actual operation of the simulation, such as allowing participants to directly analyze the proposal currently under discussion, or even participate in the discussion, rather than just learning the theory. Hi @kuiclub thanks for your questions. 1. V1 was a significantly lower-effort, less formal, and less selective program compared to V2, which resulted in much lower costs. We operated V1 for over three months with just a $10,000 Questbook grant. Additionally, V1 had a different objective: rather than training Governance Fellow, the focus was on helping participants identify and address problem areas within the DAO, such as social media, business development, and developer relations. 2. Thank you, we will consider this suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 9:09pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/35 "2024-11-22T21:09:11Z")
Hi @Tekr0x.eth, our objective in V2 is not to increase participants’ DAO voting power, but we are open to exploring this in a future phase of the Program. ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 9:11pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/36 "2024-11-22T21:11:24Z")
> [@WinVerse](#): > > My question concerns the governance fellows. Based on this post, a/the measure of success for this initiative is matching these fellows to an Arbitrum protocol. Several delegates highlighted the possibility of increasing that number from 10 to maybe 20. However, my question is, what is the plan if there are not enough protocols looking to bring in these governance fellows? Hey @WinVerse, Our team is actively doing both inbound and outbound work to find interested Protocols. The Foundation is also helping to support our efforts. As a reminder, if a Protocol is interested in working with a Fellow to assist with Governance work, please reach out to us. > [@WinVerse](#): > > You said something about inviting those not selected to participate in the next cohort but that still leads to the same possibility of not enough protocols willing to participate. Is there a plan beyond matching these fellows to protocols? To clarify, are you asking if we have a retention plan after Fellows complete their 2 months with a Protocol? ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 9:12pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/37 "2024-11-22T21:12:23Z")
Thanks @Gabriel. We are actively working on creating KPIs. As a start, we are thinking of creating KPIs that are aligned with the Delegate Incentive Program, e.g, commenting on proposals & posting voting rationale. If you have suggestions for KPIs, we would love to hear them! ---
**Author:** ![RikaGoldberg](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/rikagoldberg/32/14511_2.png) [@RikaGoldberg](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/RikaGoldberg)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 9:21pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/38 "2024-11-22T21:21:58Z")
> [@0x\_ultra](#): > > I read the feedback from participants and the available data on the results of the program, however I would like to know if you could provide more info about the long-term results of the program. How many participants have actually actively entered and integrated the DAO? How many took part in it and then didn’t pursue? I’m asking this cause I think that it’s a key element to evaluate the success of the previous version In V1, 52 participants were matched to a Fellowship, and 17 of them were added to a DAO’s New Contributors List. For more details, see the Milestone 3 Report here. Notably, one of the new contributors, @san, has become a valuable member in the Onboarding Working Group. V1 was a significantly lower-effort, less formal, and less selective program compared to V2. Additionally, V1 had a different objective: rather than training Governance Analysts, the focus was on helping participants identify and address problem areas within the DAO, such as social media, business development, and developer relations. > [@0x\_ultra](#): > > during the bi-weekly call it was mentioned that V2 wasn’t going to focus on newcomers only, aiming to bring diversity among applicants. My question here is: how do you intend to diversify levels in order for everyone to make progress? > [@0x\_ultra](#): > > I also echo some other comments concerning the selection process. How do you intend to provide transparency? Do you have specific criterias and scores? You are not the first person to bring up this suggestion! We will explore the idea of creating levels in the curriculum. We will share the application and selection criteria with the DAO; however, to protect individuals’ privacy, we will not disclose names or specific applications. If you have suggestions on how to make the application and interview process more transparent while maintaining privacy, we would appreciate your input! > [@0x\_ultra](#): > > here ([Onboarding Pilot Program: Final Report (Milestone 3)](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046)) you say that “we realized that writing a proposal may not be the most effective final deliverable for Fellowships. \*\*\*\*[…]Therefore it’s likely unreasonable to expect that newcomers, with very little context, will be able to write a quality proposal in only three months.”, however I see that this was kept among the practical exercises. It’s actually just a detail but I was interested in knowing why (or maybe you just require participants to draft it without being a high-quality one) > [@0x\_ultra](#): > > here ([Onboarding Pilot Program: Final Report (Milestone 3)](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046)) you say that “we realized that writing a proposal may not be the most effective final deliverable for Fellowships. \*\*\*\*[…]Therefore it’s likely unreasonable to expect that newcomers, with very little context, will be able to write a quality proposal in only three months.”, however I see that this was kept among the practical exercises. It’s actually just a detail but I was interested in knowing why (or maybe you just require participants to draft it without being a high-quality one) Yes, exactly. Writing a proposal as an exercise, rather than the final deliverable in V1, will alleviate the pressure that participants felt. > [@0x\_ultra](#): > > What’s your plan to help this bootcamp get visibility? Do you intend to make any changes or improvements compared to the previous version? Yes, we plan to have a Twitter/X space and market the initiative through the DAO’s official social media channels. ---
**Author:** ![Argonaut](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/argonaut/32/11832_2.png) [@Argonaut](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Argonaut)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 10:13pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/39 "2024-11-22T22:13:48Z")
We would like to start by stating that we find this proposal highly valuable for the DAO, as it aims to attract and involve high-quality delegates. We also deeply appreciate the time you dedicate to responding to everyone. From the Argonaut team, we would like to see further details on how you plan to retain the grantees. We believe it is crucial for participants to continue contributing to the DAO beyond the two months of paid engagement, and we are unsure if this approach is the most effective way to achieve that goal. For example, just as grantees must meet specific objectives to receive the grant, perhaps additional goals could be introduced to maintain it. The grant amount could also be divided into performance-based rewards tied to achievements over an extended period. Additionally, we think it is important to evaluate the program’s success by analyzing whether participants and/or grantees from all iterations of the program continue contributing to the DAO several months after completing a cycle. This would provide a more comprehensive view of how much the program has contributed to the DAO. Is this something you are considering? How do you currently plan to measure the program’s success? ---
**Author:** ![Tane](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/tane/32/3187_2.png) [@Tane](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Tane)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2024, 10:47pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/40 "2024-11-22T22:47:21Z")
Thanks for your reply. We are asking what “onboard high-quality and diverse governance participants into the DAO” exactly means in a quantifiable way (e.g. a predefined KPI) and whether it is possible to consider a portion of the compensation would be paid out based on the achievement of the KPI. [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546.md?page=1) [Next page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546.md?page=3)