I want to propose a change in the way we structure our circles so that we have just two:
- Operations: including governance, communications, community
- Development: including giveth.io, giveth TRACE, GIVeconomy, design
A Circle is an overarching grouping… bringing together our unique individual roles until some umbrella headers. The purpose of calling this a “Circle” is to have all people under the Circle aligned with common goals.
Advantages of this proposal:
- Clearer Groupings of Unique Roles: We are a small team and many of us wear multiple hats. The more general circles allow more of us to come together and the simplification allows us to feel more connected to goals listed in few words
- Ease of Payments: If we use TRACE campaigns for payments, it will be more obvious to determine which person makes a Trace under which Circle’s Campaign → you go under the one that you work more in
- Scalability: Each Circle can have within it, multiple working groups, and in the future, as we grow, we don’t need to go back and change the top level goals as much. These circles will almost always be applicable and if we want to add more documentation in the future, it can be added easily as subgroups or “subcircles”
- Simplicity, Brevity, Eliminating Redundancy: Right now we seem to have a lot of overlap between comms/community/governance circles… it’s somewhat of a challenge to keep them separated… why not bring them together, use less words and make the message more impactful?
When you think about it… that’s really all we’re doing right now… Operating Giveth (reaching out to people, talking to each other, using tech, governing our community, etc.) and Developing (DApps, a token economy, better user flows, etc.).
This wouldn’t change our working groups (communications, giv-economy, TRACE, giveth.io, design, governance, etc.) or our meetings. This would only change the way things our written in our documentation and create a bit more simplicity in the payment process if we use TRACE.
Let me know what you think!