[NON-CONSTITUTIONAL] Arbitrum Onboarding V2: A Governance Bootcamp

[GensDAO]

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.
• 2. Percentage of graduates still active in Arbitrum forums, committees, or initiatives after 6-12 months.

[Euphoria]

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 (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?

[DisruptionJoe]

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), 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.

[RikaGoldberg]

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.

[RikaGoldberg]

@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.

[BlockworksResearch]

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.