# \[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL\] 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:** 4
**Author:** ![GensDAO](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/gensdao/32/13635_2.png) [@GensDAO](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/GensDAO)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2024, 5:30pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/61 "2024-11-29T17:30:25Z")
Great work on this proposal—it’s got a lot of detail. I just wanted to flag one thing to discuss: _ **Incorporate Long-Term Impact Metrics.** _ The focus on hands-on exercises and graduation to Fellows is sound, but the program must also include clear metrics that measure its impact on the DAO over the long term. This will help us assess not only the immediate success of participants, but also their sustained contribution to the ecosystem. > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > The top 10 submissions will be eligible to be matched with an Arbitrum Protocol where they will acquire real-world governance experience as Governance Fellows Include these metrics to assess impact more effectively and communicate it to the community. This will ensure continued support for future iterations of the program. We measure contributions to DAO in two ways: - 1. Number of proposals generated or supported by former program participants. - 1. Percentage of graduates still active in Arbitrum forums, committees, or initiatives after 6-12 months. ---
**Author:** ![Euphoria](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/euphoria/32/14303_2.png) [@Euphoria](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Euphoria)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2024, 5:03pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/62 "2024-12-01T17:03:09Z")
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO (formerly ‘Lampros Labs DAO’) governance team, composed of Chain\_L (@Blueweb), @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation. Thank you for putting forward this detailed proposal. This proposal is thoughtfully designed to address key barriers in onboarding new contributors to Arbitrum DAO governance. > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > Note 1: In an effort to increase diversity within Arbitrum, we are committed to ensuring that at least 25% of program participants are female/non-binary. This ratio is aligned with the representation in the Pilot Program (V1). We will also focus on inclusivity, creating opportunities for LGBTQ+ and applicants from underrepresented regions, including developing countries, throughout the application and interview process. The inclusivity target of at least 25% of program participants being female/non-binary is particularly nice, and the structured workshops covering the Proposal Lifecycle and other governance basics are a strong foundation for new participants. > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > Those not selected for matching will be invited to participate in the next cohort on a “fast-track,” bypassing the application and interview process. This creates a positive feedback loop, providing multiple opportunities for individuals to be matched with a Protocol and contribute to Arbitrum governance. We like that participants who don’t become Fellows can join the next cohort through fast-track. We want to make sure there’s always room for new participants while being fair to those who want another chance. Will there be some specific slots reserved for the “fast-track” participants in the next cohort? > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > The workshops will be primarily facilitated by [Manugotsuka](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/manugotsuka/summary) (Manu), a Governance Contributor at @SeedGov While @Manugotsuka’s expertise is no doubt valuable, having a single primary facilitator might create a bottleneck. Have you considered bringing in guest speakers from successful DAOs or governance experts for specific content in the curriculum? This could provide diverse perspectives and reduce dependency on a single facilitator. > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > Note 2: V2 does not guarantee program participants with long-term placement in the DAO. Since there’s no guaranteed position after the program, how will you keep participants motivated? Maybe connecting them with current delegates during the program could help them build relationships and find opportunities in the DAO. > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > The highest-scoring Governance Analysts (up to 10 individuals), based on rubric evaluations, will graduate to become Governance Fellows and will be matched with a protocol to assist with governance work. The allocation for Fellow stipends ($30,000) assumes all 10 Fellows will complete the full two months. What contingency plans exist if Fellows drop out mid-program? Would these funds be returned to the DAO or reallocated to other program aspects? ---
**Author:** ![DisruptionJoe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/disruptionjoe/32/1084_2.png) [@DisruptionJoe](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/DisruptionJoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2024, 5:18pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/63 "2024-12-03T17:18:21Z")
I’m not able to square up what this proposal intends as impact. Outcome seems to be that new people to the DAO will be able to participate more effectively. How much of voting power will this affect? I don’t see a need to help people to do something that has little effect. > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > Based on the lessons learned in V1 (details are [here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/onboarding-pilot-program-final-report-milestone-3/26046)), we have developed V2, a more robust and meritocratic Onboarding Program. V2 focuses on selecting high-quality participants, training them, and assessing their skills— ultimately matching top performers with Arbitrum Protocols that need a Governance Fellow. (see note 2) How is this not training more noise if they don’t have voting power? If they don’t receive voting power, what are they being onboarded to? I guess I don’t understand how we do an onboarding program without any paid roles to onboard them to. ### As of now I would be against this proposal because roles must be defined before we can effectively onboard people to them. This proposal will bring more noise to the DAO, but not improve signal. ---
**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:** [December 4, 2024, 3:44pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/64 "2024-12-04T15:44:43Z")
Hi @Euphoria thank you for your comments and questions. Please see responses below. > [@Euphoria](#): > > Will there be some specific slots reserved for the “fast-track” participants in the next cohort? We haven’t thought about the mechanics yet to “fast-track” participants, but reserving specific slots could be a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. > [@Euphoria](#): > > Have you considered bringing in guest speakers from successful DAOs or governance experts for specific content in the curriculum? This could provide diverse perspectives and reduce dependency on a single facilitator. We will consider this. Thank you. > [@Euphoria](#): > > Since there’s no guaranteed position after the program, how will you keep participants motivated? Maybe connecting them with current delegates during the program could help them build relationships and find opportunities in the DAO. This is a good idea. Thank you. > [@Euphoria](#): > > The allocation for Fellow stipends ($30,000) assumes all 10 Fellows will complete the full two months. What contingency plans exist if Fellows drop out mid-program? Would these funds be returned to the DAO or reallocated to other program aspects? Yes, any unused funds will be returned to the DAO. ---
**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:** [December 4, 2024, 4:08pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/65 "2024-12-04T16:08:35Z")
> [@DisruptionJoe](#): > > How much of voting power will this affect? Hi Joe, our objective in V2 is not to increase participants’ voting power, but rather to equip them with governance education and hands-on experience. With that said, we are open to exploring voting power in future phases of the Program. > [@DisruptionJoe](#): > > How is this not training more noise if they don’t have voting power? If they don’t receive voting power, what are they being onboarded to? I guess I don’t understand how we do an onboarding program without any paid roles to onboard them to. As mentioned earlier, we are focused on training participants in Arbitrum DAO governance. At this stage, we believe voting power is unnecessary, as the primary goal is to educate and provide hands-on experience for Governance Analysts. Those who advance from Analysts to Fellows will have the opportunity to engage in voting through the Protocols they are matched with. ---
**Author:** ![BlockworksResearch](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/blockworksresearch/32/14962_2.png) [@BlockworksResearch](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/BlockworksResearch)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 2:50am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/66 "2024-12-05T02:50:57Z")
The following is the opinion of Blockworks Advisory. We appreciate the thoughtful governance proposal and offer a few constructive comments for consideration. The budget seems appropriate especially given the prior work done by the Onboarding Group. As others have pointed out, stickiness is a factor. The V1 program had tracks for cohort contributors to join, like the social media working group, etc. While we appreciate the current structure, there is some merit to the co-op like design from earlier. Matching these people with protocols within the Arbitrum ecosystem makes sense naturally; however, is there some path where these people can be integrated within DAO organizations as well, like the GCP, STEP, GC, or the TMG? We think that it is a good thing that the program does not guarantee placement within the DAO, as there should be some meritocratic aspect to these analysts for incentivization purposes, but an open path might make sense. To clarify, we are not saying throw out the current structure, but could there exist some possibility for there to be a DAO-specific path (post-grad co-op) and a protocol matching path? Additionally, were there any thoughst about possibly having the best performing analysts at governance events for the next year? Either at ETHDenver or something along those lines? It’s understandable that this would likely increase the program’s expenses drastically though. Candidly, we agree that there should be a cap on the managed governance analysts to ensure the quality of the program. 20 people itself is a lot, honestly. ---
**Author:** ![Ignas](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ignas/32/11301_2.png) [@Ignas](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Ignas)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 2:41pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/68 "2024-12-05T14:41:59Z")
I think this proposal has the potential to boost both the quality and quantity of participants in DAO, which will make it more sustainable in the long run. Specifically, with a professional leadership team, important decisions can be made more accurately. As many delegates have mentioned regarding the program’s budget, I’m fully convinced that DAO will make the best adjustments to protect funds long-term. So it’s worth giving it a shot, and I’ll vote yes on Snapshot! ---
**Author:** ![danielo](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/danielo/32/5539_2.png) [@danielo](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/danielo)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 4:25pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/69 "2024-12-05T16:25:22Z")
Voting against. > [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > Arbitrum DAO needs to onboard high-quality and diverse (see note 1) governance participants to thrive in the future. I’m not sure this is the issue we should be tackling right now. It seems to me that the issue in the DAO is not one of lack of hands but rather one of coordination. Adding more people at this stage can make coordination harder, not easier. Another problem statement that has been mentioned is that of protocols not participating in governance. However, I don’t know if we have a robust understanding of why that is, so we might be solving the wrong problem. I would spend 30-40k on a research initiative to deeply understand how/why protocols engage or not and what they would like. Then IF the problem is lack of analysts, help them recruit one, but I’d need to see a job description first. And only IF there are no analysts available, then train them. Otherwise we’re putting the cart before the wheels it seems. ---
**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:** [December 5, 2024, 7:59pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/70 "2024-12-05T19:59:20Z")
I will vote in favor of the proposal on Snapshot. I do think we need to work towards having better delegates with more expertise and diversity. Although I don’t agree that we should impose hard percentages on LGBTQ+ participants, as everyone should be treated equally, I believe the intention is fair. ---
**Author:** ![0xDonPepe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0xdonpepe/32/5989_2.png) [@0xDonPepe](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0xDonPepe)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 9:34pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/71 "2024-12-05T21:34:59Z")
Just voted **in favor** of this proposal on Snapshot. The team behind this proposal is top-notch, and I’m confident they’ll make it a success. As I mentioned earlier, I like it’s meritocratic approach and I’m eager to see the impact this will have on the Arbitrum DAO. ---
**Author:** ![EzR3aL](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/ezr3al/32/14760_2.png) [@EzR3aL](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/EzR3aL)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2024, 10:47pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/72 "2024-12-05T22:47:06Z")
Unfortunately i havent received any answer on my questions, which is why i voted NO. ---
**Author:** ![PennBlockchain](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/pennblockchain/32/2030_2.png) [@PennBlockchain](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/PennBlockchain)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2024, 12:02am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/73 "2024-12-06T00:02:52Z")
FranklinDAO agrees with the conerns of @danielo - We believe that there’s a key problem of coordination under a unified strategy in Arbitrum. We encourage diversity and more voices in Arbitrum governance, but think that at this time it’s more important to prioritize focus and coordination. Training members to be delegates without guaranteeing their participation in the future doesn’t solve this problem in our view. Hence, we voted Against this proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Larva](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/larva/32/1896_2.png) [@Larva](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Larva)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2024, 2:00am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/74 "2024-12-06T02:00:36Z")
> [@RikaGoldberg](#): > > 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. Nice! This would greatly enhance the value of this proposal. In fact, many Delegates might also benefit from such training, not just those who are newly joining the DAO. ---
**Author:** ![0xTALVO.ETH\_MTY](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0xtalvo.eth_mty/32/10365_2.png) [@0xTALVO.ETH\_MTY](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0xTALVO.ETH_MTY)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2024, 6:27am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/75 "2024-12-06T06:27:21Z")
I voted **in favor** on Snapshot after listening to ocandocrypto in the bi-weekly call. I believe there is a robust and highly committed team behind this. I think there is an opportunity to continue training current and new members with practical exercises. I understand the importance of inclusion, but I also support and believe that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in these programs. I hope that the implementation of workshops for the public, for anyone who wants to learn about the ecosystem and build connections, has been considered. ---
**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:** [December 6, 2024, 7:03am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/76 "2024-12-06T07:03:40Z")
I decided to vote in favor. As I mentioned in the discussions a few weeks ago, I believe this is a great opportunity to help newcomers familiarize themselves with the DAO and connect with protocols and delegates. In the long term, this will lead to greater expertise, quality and diversity among delegates. I also appreciate that @RikaGoldberg incorporated community feedback and provided clear KPIs. I’m excited to see this proposal progress in the coming steps! ---
**Author:** ![0xAlex](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/0xalex/32/5325_2.png) [@0xAlex](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/0xAlex)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2024, 7:11am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/77 "2024-12-06T07:11:29Z")
After reflection, I have ultimately decided to vote “Against” in this proposal. While the goal of training new participants in governance is commendable, I am skeptical about its ultimate impact and benefits for the DAO, especially if these participants do not possess significant voting power. Unfortunately, those without at least 50k ARB will not be eligible for the DIP. As for the “inclusivity aspect,” I appreciate crypto’s meritocratic nature, where anonymity allows work to be valued solely on its quality, and feel the clause on this proposal may not fully align with that ethos. The cost of this proposal is substantially higher—twenty times that of the initial pilot—and there seems to be no guaranteed return on investment, as participants could simply apply their new skills in other DAOs. While I recognize that the mentors could provide considerable value, my main concern is that this proposal does not address the primary governance priority, which is to increase ARB percentage voting. I could support such program if this was its core priority from the start, with having at some point ARB delegated from the DAO Treasury to the participant for example. Thank you for this well-written proposal @RikaGoldberg and for the work done there much appreciated ---
**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2024, 7:48am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/78 "2024-12-06T07:48:54Z")
voting **Against** on the current offchain proposal because I feel the protocols should pay for this, not the DAO, or at least they should match a little bit of the payment to ensure they are aligned. ---
**Author:** ![pedrob](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/pedrob/32/15561_2.png) [@pedrob](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/pedrob)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2024, 1:06pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/79 "2024-12-06T13:06:33Z")
After much consideration, I am voting AGAINST this proposal in its current structure. First, I want to thank @RikaGoldberg and the team for their work on v1 and this proposal. I do believe there is value in a program of this nature, and I would like to see it implemented in the future. The reasons for my vote against this proposal at this time are as follows: I disagree with using the DIP metrics to evaluate the success of this program, particularly the chosen metrics. Voting is accessible to anyone, and commenting on proposals is too. The challenge and the core work @SEEDGov performs in the DIP lies in assessing the _quality_ of that participation. There is no prior alignment—at least not shared in this proposal—with Arbitrum protocols for its implementation. I believe that if the DAO is going to fund the training of new participants, it should be with the concrete goal of integrating them into Arbitrum protocols (e.g., DAO leads or DAO analysts), thereby fostering the involvement of builders in governance. As it stands, the proposal and its KPIs seem to focus on funding participants for the sake of participation alone. While this is not inherently wrong, I believe that, given DAO funding, the focus should be different. Additionally, a suggestion I consider important was not included: > [@pedrob](#): > > **On Governance Analysts and Fellows:** > > 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. Lastly, no mechanisms for retaining the fellows have been incorporated, raising doubts about this investment’s short-term effectiveness. Something interesting to consider is what @danielo mentions: > [@danielo](#): > > I would spend 30-40k on a research initiative to deeply understand how/why protocols engage or not and what they would like. Then IF the problem is lack of analysts, help them recruit one, but I’d need to see a job description first. And only IF there are no analysts available, then train them. For all these reasons, I am voting against this proposal. However, I support the idea, and if the proposal is modified to address the points I’ve raised, I will change my vote to support 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:** [December 6, 2024, 3:36pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/80 "2024-12-06T15:36:22Z")
The [Snapshot](https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0xb5bbd23c20a480dc46f750112b6cc8f1d1825e40cdd0fc12f4ac3642b18f6740) went live yesterday. We appreciate your votes! ---
**Author:** ![kuiclub](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/kuiclub/32/13305_2.png) [@kuiclub](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/kuiclub)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2024, 5:28pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546/81 "2024-12-06T17:28:47Z")
I will vote in favor of the proposal on Snapshot. I genuinely believe we need to work toward having more professional and diverse representatives. The updated plan feels more comprehensive—helping newcomers get involved in Arbitrum’s governance while offering clear KPIs and ongoing support. By extending the timeframe and increasing training depth, the governance fellows we train can bring greater long-term value. I’m casting a “yes” vote, hoping this initiative will foster a healthier and more vibrant Arbitrum ecosystem. [Previous page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546.md?page=3) [Next page](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-arbitrum-onboarding-v2-a-governance-bootcamp/27546.md?page=5)