Some questions I had…
Should operations be under the platform circle or the community circle?
Should project verification its own working group or is that team encompassed by the GIVeconomy working group?
Hey Ash! Thanks for getting the ball rolling with this post!
Do you plan on having anyone for Community Outreach? There’s lots of tasks I see that might not fall under support - houekeeping on the discord and DApps(checking for bad projects and suc), verifying projects and interacting with our community on-chain and off-chain ( Donating w/ Giveth Love on Giveth.io is a great example) where would some of these tasks lie?
For the platform circle I can say immediately there will be pushback on have IO and TRACE become separate working groups. They definitely should be combined to just a developer WG. Relating also the GIVeconomy WG they rely heavily on smart contract developers who are in fact developers, how can we make sure these two stay looped in to avoid familiar problems we’ve had in the past?
I also wonder what the point of a Governance WG would be? would technically every contributor also be considered part of Governance based on how we distribute rGIV?
4 Likes
Whassup owls 
! Thanks @WhyldWanderer for kicking this off with your proposal and @mitch for your great feedback…
I was working with @freshelle on updating the Giveth Organizational Chart … I think getting clear about our Circles, Working Groups, leads/stewards is an important next step before pushing this out for helping onboard new contributors.
Spoke to Griff about Operations… this is mostly Kay’s role and it requires managing/maintaining servers… making sure our DApps run and the discord server is ok. It shouldn’t really be a separate working group and imho should fall under “Platform” or more specifically “Development”. Other operational things (like managing the forum or livestreams) can be part of Communications/Community.
I think Project Verification shouldn’t be it’s own working group, but can be part of “Platform” or “Community”… This is like a separate project.
Anyway, I’d to suggest the following revisions/simplifications to the working groups. I think we should create working groups based more on the work being done or the skills of people in that working group - not on the specific project in which those skills are being. It would make things less complicated because, for example, to build a DApp like giveth.io, we need people to make decisions on what should be included (governance)… we need designs, we need developers, we need testers, we need text to be written on the DApp (comms), we need to share updates with out community, we need to support users getting on the DApp (support).
So we have skillset working groups (below), and we have Giveth projects (giveth.io, project verification, giveth TRACE, GIVgarden, etc.)… and we have people from each working group working on different projects. The working groups don’t need to have separate meetings - we can meet for the projects - but we can have sync meetings if it seems useful/necessary.
Anyway, with no further ado, I propose the following:
Community Circle
- Communications - writing all things, emails, text on the DApps, blog posts, docs, forum posts
- Community Support - supporting Giveth users, supporting new contributors
- Conflict Resolution - Gravity
Platform Circle
- Design - branding, DApp design, design for comms
- Development - giveth.io dev, TRACE dev, operations, GIVeconomy dev (liquidity mining, garden, GIVbacks)
- User Testing - supporting devs with user testing
- Project Management - can have one PM per project
GIVernance Circle
- Governance - including anyone who wants to have a say
- DAO - token voting in the GIVgarden and Aragon
LMK what you think? I’m open to adding another Community WG called “outreach” as per Mitch’s suggestion as well. Open to reworking this more with some feedback… this is just my first best attempt
3 Likes
Great Suggestions! I definitely agree with some points but given the fact that we want to flesh out each working group with a steward (and likely the steward will decide to add more) I’m left scratching my head at some of the WG proposals.
in the Platform Circle I hear your point about dividing each WG into actual work being done in the group but I think if we go down that rabbit hole we’ll end up with a very overengineered and overly complicated web of groups. To that end, I’d suggest eliminating the User Testing WG in favour of just being part of development. The Project Management WG I don’t think is necessary to distinguish at this point in the game. If we find ourselves one day with a mitten full of product managers that lack inter-coordination perhaps we should take another look.
for GIVernance, Dani made a great point yesterday about a WG doing all the nitty gritty administration stuff, payments, DAO functionality and upholding the tools and principles we use to govern ourselves (Advice Process, Sociocracy). I see a GIVernance WG being also the whistleblowers in case of bad actors or governance members running afoul or trying to circumvent the processes we define.
for Community Circle - I like the first two, communications and community support. However our Conflict Resolution process is non-existant. I know we have a plan to implement Gravity but until we really implement Gravity or frankly anything (currently we have nothing) then we’re putting the cart in front of the horse. At this point I could see any sort of conflict-resolution or mediation fall under the Suppport WG, who would also support our current contributors.
All this being said, I think this proposal has some nice features! Thanks for writing this up Lauren.
Yeah I agree, User Testing and Project Management are pretty weak WGs - they can be part of development. And Conflict Resolution can easily be a subject of community support.
This is better:
Community Circle
- Communications - writing all things, emails, text on the DApps, blog posts, docs, forum posts
- Community Support - supporting Giveth users, supporting new contributors, conflict management
Platform Circle
- Design - branding, DApp design, design for comms
- Development - giveth.io dev, TRACE dev, operations, GIVeconomy dev (liquidity mining, garden, GIVbacks), user testing, project management
What I don’t really agree with adding another governance WG called GIVernance. Ashley was suggesting we have overarching stewards… so each WG has stewards and then the Circle has a stewards as well… The GIVernance Circle Steward can be in charge of making sure nothing goes awry. The governance WG will be in change of the nitty gritties, including admin work, payments, etc. So, for the final circle, I suggest (with minor modifications):
GIVernance Circle
- Governance - admin work, payments, advice process, sociocracy
- DAO - token voting in the GIVgarden and rGiv
2 Likes
What you outlined in terms of WG’s was exactly what I had in mind, you captured it well. I however, don’t think having stewards for circles and stewards for WGs make sense at this point in the game, we should pick one or the other.
If we decide there’s a lack of structure we can always scale up, and we have a good plan here to do so. Scaling down would be messy if we find there’s too much structure, which I think there would be, at this point in the organization.
My feeling here is we start with nominating and approving Circle Stewards.
Then let the Circle Stewards work with their circles to establish working groups.
1 Like
I second that. Let’s start the nomination process.
OK I support the refinement of starting out with 2 working groups per circle.
And, I support the suggestion of nominating stewards for each of the working groups, and leaving it to them who leads / how they share leading the Circle itself (a shift from my previous perspective of nominating a Circle steward who leads nominating Working Group stewards from within the Circle).
So! Here are my nominations and why:
Community Circle
* Communications - writing all things, emails, text on the DApps, blog posts, docs, forum posts
Dani nominates Lauren for Communications WG Steward, because she has the longest view into various aspects of Giveth and the Galaxy as well as a great eye for reviewing writings and testing Dapps.
* Community Support - supporting Giveth users, supporting new contributors, conflict management
Dani nominates Ashley for Community Support WG Steward because she has demonstrated a great capacity for supporting both contributors and users, as well as championing Gravity for our conflict mgmt.
Platform Circle
* Design - branding, DApp design, design for comms
Dani nominates Marko because he has been doing an epic job without the formal designation already and it’s wheelhouse.
* Development - giveth.io dev, TRACE dev, operations, GIVeconomy dev (liquidity mining, garden, GIVbacks), user testing, project management
Dani nominates Mateo, because he has a great overall understanding of aligning the development integration from Givethio through the GIVeconomy with the overall Giveth vision and mission while not being too deep in managing the details of Sprint planning and coordination for each DApp component.
GIVernance Circle
Governance - admin work, payments, advice process, sociocracy
Dani nominates Hannah because she has the skills to manage the details of these moving parts and the aptitude to learn and lead the ‘nitty gritties’.
DAO - token voting in the GIVgarden and Aragon
Dani nominates herself because she has been leading the Aragon part and in handing off the nitty gritties can learn and lead the GIVgarden too. *I kind of want to nominate Mitch here because he has a great understanding of GIVgarden already, and an eye for surfacing issues in the token voting process. So if Mitch nominates himself I’ll probably change my mind.
3 Likes
I think all of Dani’s nominations are great with one modification… Lauren nominates Griff for the Governance Steward role… Griff is already managing payments, admin work and is a great resource for all our questions… like “who are the relevant parties for advice process on x proposal”, etc. Hannah is coming in with skills (and I think will be a very valuable addition to the governance WG) but is still a relatively new contributor to Giveth and it makes sense to me that the initial WG stewards be experienced active contributors.
I think all the Stewards don’t necessarily need to take on all the nitty gritty details of each circle… and we already have sub-groups/projects (i.e. GIVeconomy & giveth.io/TRACE integration) that have formed which are combinations of elements of each of the above WGs. To me, the WG steward’s responsibility would actually be to have a birds eye view of the each of the projects and how they relate to each working group. The Steward would also be the “point person” for that working group… someone to direct questions/feedback/etc. to.
1 Like
Nice Lauren, great feedforward 
!! With Freshelle and Heather and Hannah in that WG it’s a pretty sweet lineup. And I totes appreciate that moving into the Steward role right off the bat is a lot.
1 Like
I really don’t think Griff has the bandwidth for Governance Steward, most of the nitty gritty stuff is delegated off to several people. I would be more comfortable with a Steward who has more time and focus to lead this WG - I would vote for Hannah as well since part of her role description is to bother Dani and learn as much as she can, Dani being my 2nd choice for the Governance Steward.
I also would disagree with making Mateo the Development steward on the same grounds. He’s currently the only full-time dev working on Giveth.io and I don’t think should have the extra burden/responsibility of managing the WG with all of the added extra tasks. I would go for MoeNick in his place because MoeNick is already managing the big picture stuff for all of our current developers and wouldn’t have to add too much to his regular tasks to move adequately into a stewarding role.
As for the rest I am in agreeance with you @Danibelle ! I will take some time to consider if I would be interested in Stewarding the DAO.
A good steward should be delegating!
I am coordinating and leading the design of the GIVeconomy. Once that is complete, I will have more bandwidth for organizing the governance things… in the end, I feel like i will have the authority of a steward in the Governance group whether I am a steward or not… and i hope Dani and Hannah will run things by me as an expert in the topics via normal advice process since i have been the circle lead of governance for 4 years, helped create most of the processes we have here, and etc etc.
But 4 years is a good run… so I am happy to give up the title… either way, I will be a major part of that circle.
3 Likes
From our Governance Call Today…
Accepted and approved WG stewards:
- Community Circle > Communications Working Group: Lauren
- Community Circle > Community Support Working Group: Ashley
- Platform Circle > Design Working Group: Marko
- Governance Circle > Governance Working Group: Griff
- Governance Circle > DAO Working Group: Mitch & Dani
To be determined…
- Platform Circle > Development Working Group:
- Mateo, MoeNick and Amin nominated
It was expressed that we should create more clarity around Development WG lead’s role before voting. Could we get some thoughts in the comments?
Here are the notes:
Also from Governance Meeting Aug 30:
-
Steward Definition Guidelines:
- A go-to person who knows what’s going on and informed
- Ensures the right information is available for the working group
- Able to do updates at community calls
- Able to answer questions for new contributors.
- Not to have a huge list of responsibilities
- Accountability, quality control, resource allocation according to road map, oversee all the work of the working group.
- Mentorship? Help new contributors understand where they can fit
- Chapter co-ordinator? Spotify model. Too complicated, we don’t have the experience in this. Start with what we have with our DAO model and review in future.
1 Like
According our last call, this is the gist of what Im thinking about platform circle’s (so-called) working group:
Instead of having this:
Lets adopt this:
2 Likes
Let’s stop building walls within the circles. Pleeease…
The current practice we are adopting right now, will empowers the idea of building independent working groups within a team. which leads to less agile product management.
Imagine further requests of having QA working group, PM working group, DEV working group, Ops working group…
There is no need of having a separate working group for just 2 - 3 persons, we may remove blockers across our production.
There are lots of resources about why agile teams should be cross-functional. Please search, and you can refer to this as an example:
3 Likes
I also support it… but I also don’t think that it precludes there being a Design Circle.
Right now we have two main products, The Giveth DApp and the we have the GIVeconomy (which is integrated witht he Giveth DApp). Let’s structure the Development circle around the products. That seems like a good idea, and we can have 2 Dev squads.
Designers can be part of all 3 wgs and other circles too. I don’t think there is a wall between any circles, just a separation of concerns, and the Design Circle needs to focus on integrating the design of all of Giveth. There is a lot of small products there. Our twitter, medium, etc, the dapps and other future products, I think it makes sense to have a Design WG and a Design point person, especially when other groups start popping up wanting to build stuff. 
Also… I like mapping the structure to what we already have. We have DApp meetings, we have Marko leading Design, and we have the GIVeconomy Sprint calls. We already have those work streams, lets just map to what naturally arose
1 Like
I like it … let’s follow well practiced approaches instead of reinventing the wheel
If this structure is approved, I think Moenick would be the best contact point for production circle.
2 Likes