Updating the OpCo Foundation’s Operational Capability

We’ll wait to listen to the calls before making a final judgement but while we were generally apprehensive about OpCo being formed at first, and these changes specifically, we’ve had some private conversations that make us feel we must vote ‘for’ on this. Only AF and OCL have the context to push the chain forward in an efficient way. However, AF/OCL isn’t always going to share this context with the wider DAO like they might with the other few members on the OAT or future hires for OpCo like the Chief Chaos Coordinator or Chief of Coins. Therefore, any decision making that goes through a wider delegate body will be inherently flawed as a result of issues being seen and understood through a lens of partial information. This obviously should be limited as much as possible, leaving the elected, appointed, and hired individuals free to make as many decisions as they can themselves, only bringing in more delegates when absolutely necessary and when they are willing to share all the relevant context so that a fully informed decision can be made.

We know this might be seen with some wariness by other delegates but OpCo already exists and the OAT has been formed with its elected individuals. If those individuals don’t feel like they can do their best work with the OpCo as it is in the iteration that was voted through initially, it should be reshaped such that they can. The alternative is having a team that feels like they are being forced to work through constraints that hinder their abilities, which we don’t think is a good spot for the DAO to be in.

Our only suggestion is similar to the one we had with the adjustment of quorum. We don’t expect this to be the last time this kind of conversation comes up. It is more than likely that OpCo and OAT will run into more restrictions they will wish to lift in the future. To avoid repeating this kind of discussion, which we believe can become contentious quickly, we would encourage the OAT to make sure that any changes here err on the side of giving OpCo more freedom than they think they might need, even if it means expanding this proposal more.