Hi Rika and friends,
Thank you for the hard work you’ve put into this. It’s nice to know that people are interested in joining the DAO and that there’s been successful efforts to do so.
We agree with your conclusions based on reading the notion pages and feedback from the groups involved. It would be best practice if the DAO could possibly assign a mentor to help lead these groups. Additionally, maybe we could consolidate resources and have specific days where onboarding groups overlap with core DAO groups to gain actionable insights from current DAO participants. Something like 1 committee/working group meeting per quarter must overlap with an onboarding group, so that DAO participants are kept in the loop. This might be good in place of workshops.
Moving forward, there should definitely be some official communications on the Arbitrum website so that there’s better and perhaps more manageable inbound.
As for compensation, we agree that there should be some retroactive compensation policy for onboarding participants who have used a significant portion of their time and effort in becoming an active DAO member. Other DAOs use retroactive grants/funding in some manner, though if we pursue this we would like to discuss clear delineated paths for onboarding groups moving forward.
Finally, given that the DAO is currently in an experimental phase and has multiple ongoing and pending initiatives/working groups/etc, we understand that the onboarding hub may not be useful or possible to maintain at this point in time, and thus it is understandable to deprecate this. Although, we will say that, the onboarding hub does not necessarily have to be the central place for all DAO initiatives, just a hub for all that an onboarding participant might deem as important/immediately actionable to them.This may mean working/core groups playing a more active role in posting/updating outsourced community/onboarding tasks.