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.
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?
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.
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 didnât pursue? Iâm asking this cause I think that itâs a key element to evaluate the success of the previous version
during the bi-weekly call it was mentioned that V2 wasnât 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)) you say that âwe realized that writing a proposal may not be the most effective final deliverable for Fellowships. ****[âŚ]Therefore itâs likely unreasonable to expect that newcomers, with very little context, will be able to write a quality proposal in only three months.â, however I see that this was kept among the practical exercises. Itâs 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)
Whatâs 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 Iâm looking forward for it to be approved!
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.
Can you please clarify what you mean by âpartial compensations need to be paid out?"
While admitting more people doesnât necessarily require additional funding, it does demand more resources and attention from our team. As a result, weâve decided to accept a manageable number of Governance Analysts to ensure we can provide them with a âwhite gloveâ experience.
We are actively exploring mechanisms to retain Fellows within the DAO. However, as outlined in the proposal, âthe Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.â 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.
Thanks for flagging this.
To clarify, when you say âManagement Specialistâ, do you mean the Course Facilitator?
Hi @duokongcrypto, thanks for your suggestions/questions.
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.
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!
Thanks for the suggestion. We will definitely consider it.
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 âthe Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.â 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.â
If you have ideas for retention mechanisms, we would love to hear them!
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 â individually or with an organization.
As written in the proposal, âWe 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.â
If there is other criteria that you think could be relevant, please let us know!
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.
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 could benefit from increased governance participation.
Yes, youâre 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!
Yes, @ocandocrypto is actively engaging with protocols, and weâre also receiving support from the Foundation in these efforts. Protocols interested in collaborating are welcome to reach out to us directly.
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!
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 âthe Program does not guarantee placement within the DAO.â 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!
Yes, we agree and welcome existing DAO members to apply. However we are mindful of @cp0xâs 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.
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.
Hi @Tekr0x.eth, our objective in V2 is not to increase participantsâ DAO voting power, but we are open to exploring this in a future phase of the Program.
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.
To clarify, are you asking if we have a retention plan after Fellows complete their 2 months with a Protocol?
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!
In V1, 52 participants were matched to a Fellowship, and 17 of them were added to a DAOâs 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.
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 individualsâ 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!
Yes, exactly. Writing a proposal as an exercise, rather than the final deliverable in V1, will alleviate the pressure that participants felt.
Yes, we plan to have a Twitter/X space and market the initiative through the DAOâs official social media channels.
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 programâs 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 programâs success?
Thanks for your reply. We are asking what âonboard high-quality and diverse governance participants into the DAOâ 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.