Improving the Season Voting Experience

With each Season we continue to iterate on our subDAOification experiment. Season 3 is well underway and as always we should find how we can improve the experience so when we arrive at Season 4 proposal and voting process feels better than the last.

The purpose of this post is to gather feedback on the Season 3 process and suggestions on how to improve the process for next Season.

Some questions to ponder: :thinking:

  • How can we improve Working Group Proposals to provide the most relevant information, while not creating unnecessary bureacracy for WG Leaders?

  • How can we improve the voting experience so voters understand what impact their vote has and the consequences of certain outcomes?

  • How can we set & respect our organizaton’s budget’s throughout the entire process?

  • How can we strike a balance in setting expectations from Working Groups in deliverables and allowing them to be agile in decision-making?

Feel free to add any points I didn’t cover above.

This is an open discussion, but I hope to have some findings we can extract in about one month from now, so we can incorporate them into Season 4!

4 Likes

I did some retrospectives from the last related forum post which was not discussed/addressed. Giveth Season 3, Begins - #5 by MoeNick

1 Like

mentioned this in the gov call, but since I was already drafting will post here for transparency.

I think that perhaps having the multiple votes thing - one for each WG proposal might work better… and in addition we can have kind of a ranked-choice vote (or weighted vote). So:

  1. All WG proposals go up at the same time
  2. Same day, 1 snapshot per WG propsoal comes up to see if for each people want grow/shrink/sustain
  3. An additional snapshot goes up for ranked choice or weighted voting … where you can choose what order to prioritize WGs.
  4. Once those pass, we can, in the gov call some up with some “options” e.g. dao ops grow / qf sustain / giveconomy shrink… OR dao ops sustain / qf sustain / giveconomy sustain… and then we have one more vote to see which option everyone wants.

So we could understand if people thought that certain proposals should we grow/shrink/sustain… but then also know which “grows” to prioritize… and end up with something that everyone really consents to.

I felt that the weighted voting this round led to a bit of a surprise in the conclusions and it would help to be a bit more granular/slow w/ the voting.

1 Like