Season 6: Missions v2.5

Governance Design 📐 Metagovernance
,
1

Special thanks to @brichis, @GFXlabs, @Gonna.eth, @jackanorak, @kaereste, @Matt / @mastermojo, and @Porter_Smith, for review and feedback of scope changes as part of the Feedback Commission.

Missions v2.5

The Mission process has been an ongoing experiment, which we refine each Season based on delegate and grant applicant feedback. Much of the Mission process will remain the same in Season 6, to preserve continuity, with some changes aimed at simplifying the process for delegates and improving the grant applicant experience. All changes and simplifications are proposed based on direct feedback from grant applicants, delegates, and Council members. As always, we will continue to experiment and iterate based on learnings in Season 6. You can reference the full retrospective here.

For simplicity, the new process will be outlined in two separate guides.

- Mission Requests: Delegate Voting Guide
- Missions: Grant Application Guide

Missions

image
image1120×1548 61.5 KB

A summary of changes relative to Season 5 is outlined below:

  • The Feedback Commission will be able to propose Mission Requests under Intent #1, as they pertain to governance initiatives. This is an important step in the Path towards Open Metagovernance.

  • The Grants Council will be able to propose Mission Requests under Intent #3A.

  • The Growth Team of the Foundation will create one Mission Request under Intent #3B. This allows the Foundation to temporarily facilitate coordination across Superchain initiatives, one of the Foundation’s most important roles. In the future, it’s possible that Mission Requests under this Intent may be proposed by OP Chain delegates.

  • Why these changes?

    • Top 100 delegates will no longer be asked to create or approve Mission Request drafts. This dramatically reduces the complexity of the process, the amount of downtime in the grants program, and the potential for builder confusion. For a comprehensive overview of the intensity of the previous Mission Request approval process, please see SEED LatAm’s report.

    • Any member of the Feedback Commission and/or Grants Council may still choose to sponsor a Mission Request authored by any member of the community. 13 Mission Requests in Season 5 were sponsored, indicating sponsorship can play an important role in this process.

    • In reality, the majority of Mission Requests were proposed by members of the Grants Council in Season 5, so this doesn’t change a lot in practice.

    • The Grants Council must assess Mission Applications and separating the creation and evaluation of Mission Requests, creates a version of the principal-agent problem. The missions v2.5 reduces this dynamic while still balancing power among multiple stakeholders (see DAO Design Principles.)

  • All Mission Request drafts will still be voted on by the Token House, meaning all delegates still have the final say over which Mission Requests are supported under each Intent. Mission Requests will be proposed in a rank order, but delegates may override the suggested order by casting votes in any order they choose. This allows delegates to maintain agency while reducing the cognitive overhead and time required.

  • The Grants Council will continue to process all grant applications under each Request in regular 3-6 week cycles throughout the Season.

  • This process will allow Mission Requests to be rank ordered during the first cycle of the Season (Voting Cycle #24), reducing downtime in the grants program, an important consideration for growth. Please reference the Delegate Mission Voting Guide for details on rank ordering and budgeting.

  • Improvements will be made to the application process to better optimize the experience for builders and address key pain points that emerged during S5.

    • The Foundation will work closely with the Grants Council to align grants calendars with the governance calendar, ensuring simplicity and understandability of key deadlines and dates.

    • The Foundation conducted research on the applicant experience and shared recommendations for designing processes optimized for applicants with the Grants Council.

    • The Developer Advisory will advise the Grants Council on all technical grants and milestones, regardless of the Intent they fall under.

    • The Foundation will advise the Grants Council on all governance Mission Requests, to ensure they correspond to governance roadmaps.

    • The full Season 5 retrospective can be found here.

These changes were directly informed by feedback from delegates, grant applicants, the Grants Council, and the Developer Advisory Board. As always, Missions v2.5 will be treated as an experiment and we’ll collected feedback throughout the process to make adjustments as needed based on learnings.

7 Likes
3

As part of the Path to Open Metagovernance, we’ll be experimenting with polls this Reflection Period.

Are there any changes to the Mission process are you NOT supportive of?

Please provide additional feedback in the comments if you select any answers below

  • The Collective Feedback Commission and Grants Council as proposers of Mission Requests
  • Token House approval ranking still required
  • Accelerated timeline
  • I’d prefer to propose a specific alternative to Mission Requests
0 voters
5

Hey @system

If delegates want to suggest a mission to any of the eligible bodies for sponsorship will there be a separate thread created for this, or shall each proposal be it’s own post?

6

We will create a thread for suggestions for each eligible Intent, once the new Council is elected, but members of the Collective Feedback Commission and/or Grants Council may also facilitate sponsorship in other ways of their choosing!

1 Like