Season 6: Developer Advisory Board Renewal

Elected Representatives đź’Ľ Renewal
,
1

Special thanks to @Gonna.eth, @jackanorak, and @Porter_Smith for review and feedback of scope changes as part of the Feedback Commission.

Season 6: Developer Advisory Board Renewal

A Developer Advisory Board (DAB) was created in Season 5 to experiment with the DAB as a mechanism to embed more technical knowledge within the Collective. Specifically, the DAB advised the Grants Council on evaluating Mission Request drafts and Mission Applications under Intent #1 (Progress Towards Technical Decentralization), as well as any technical milestones.

You can find the retrospective of the Season 5 Developer Advisory Board here.

Boards may be authorized by the Foundation for an initial pilot period (at least one Season.) After this pilot, representative structures must be renewed by governance for a subsequent Season. The DAB is in this stage. If successfully renewed this Season, the DAB will become a persistent structure in the Collective, assumed to continue unless/until a Council Dissolution proposal is put forward, as outlined in the Operating Manual.

  • If delegates believe the DAB should continue in Season 6, delegates should vote to approve a DAB Operating Budget. If delegates do not believe the DAB should continue in Season 6, they should not approve any associated operating budget.

All prospective Leads may propose a Developer Advisory Board Operating Budget for Season 6. Delegates that believe the DAB should be renewed, should only vote to approve one Developer Advisory Board Operating Budget. The budget proposal with the highest proportion of “Yes” votes will be approved. Delegates are effectively electing the Lead that has authored an approved budget.

If continued, the rest of the members of the DAB will be elected, according to the process outlined here. At least one representative of OP Labs, or other Core Devs, must be on the Board in order to ensure coherence with roadmaps, etc. This representative will continue to be appointed by the Foundation until roadmaps are public.

Proposal drafts, with 4 delegate approvals, are due by May 22nd at 19:00 GMT.

Please see the Collective Reward Framework for help evaluating budget requests.

Developer Advisory Board Operating Budget Template

It is recommended that you add a poll to the bottom of your proposal asking the community if they believe your proposal is ready to move to a vote.

Proposed Board Lead: Name

Proposed Board Operating Budget: X OP (+/- from last Season)

Contact Info: Email

Please link to any previous work or qualifications to be Board Lead:

  • Link to community contributions (Forum posts, voting history, delegate communication threads, attestations, etc.)

  • Link to relevant work experience

Board Charter:

  • Link to original Charter: Season 5 Charter
  • Link to proposed Season 6 Charter
    • Please note that the Charter of the Council will need to be expanded to account for the following changes in Scope:
      • The DAB will be expected to provide plain english explanation of Protocol Upgrades within 72 hours of a proposal draft being posted
      • Approval by the DAB will be required as 1/4 delegate approvals required for a Protocol Upgrade to move to a vote
      • The DAB, alongside Core Developers, will be able to create ideas on the Builders Ideas
      • The DAB will advise the Grants Council on any technical grants and/or milestones, regardless of which Intent they fall under. Advisory should be provided to the Grants Council within 72 hours of a request.
      • If DAB reviewers (at least 3) unanimously vote “no” on an application or milestone, it will prevent approval by the Grants Council
      • It is recommended that the OP Labs representative vote on any application corresponding to the core protocol and/or associated roadmap
      • All members will be accountable to governance as they remain removable via the Representative Removal proposal type outlined in the Operating Manual
      • [to reflect any other material changes outlined by proposal authors, as necessary and permitted]

Breakdown of Board Operating Budget:
Please note, regular Voting Cycles will be 3 weeks long in Season 6 but the Grants Council may choose to process grants in two 9 week waves.

Example:

  • Number of Members = XXXX OP (+/- from last Season)
    • Please break down # by sub-committee, if applicable
    • Please indicate any leadership roles to be designated among members (ie. Ops Lead, Comms Lead, etc.)
    • Please explain any increase or decrease since last Season
    • It is strongly recommended that teams not exceed 7 members, but may support up to 14 if split across smaller teams
  • Lead = XXXX OP (+/- from last Season)
    • Please explain any increase or decrease since last Season

How should governance participants measure the Board’s impact, and ensure its executing on its Charter?

User Experience KPI:

The Foundation suggests the below measures, or similar:

  • NPS of Grants Council Reviewers (as the Grants Council is the primary user of the DAB’s advisory)
  • Response time to Grants Council inquiries (as the Grants Council is the primary user of the DAB’s advisory)
  • 90% provision rate of plain english summaries of all protocol upgrades within 72 hours of proposal being posted

Performance KPIs:

The Foundation suggests the below measures, or similar:

  • Public feedback from OP Labs engineering team on the grants made by Grants Council (is it positive or negative?)
  • Number of technical milestones not met
  • Voting participation on Protocol Upgrades, considering the # of abstain votes of protocol upgrades
  • Number of questions about Protocol Upgrades from Citizens

Consistent with other reward allocations, all rewards will be subject to a KYC and claims flow process.

What Does This Mean for Delegates?

Delegates will vote on a Developer Advisory Board Operating Budget in Special Voting Cycle #23a. Approving a Developer Advisory Board Operating Budget elects the proposal author as Lead. Delegates will vote to elect members in Special Voting Cycle #23b as outlined here.

If you vote not to renew the Developer Advisory Board, we ask that you provide suggestions for alternative mechanisms to embed technical expertise in Collective decision making.

4 Likes
3

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

Are there any aspects of the DAB’s scope expansion that you are NOT supportive of?

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

  • If DAB reviewers (at least 3) unanimously vote “no” on an application or milestone, it will prevent approval by the Grants Council
  • The DAB will advise the Grants Council on any technical grants and/or milestones, regardless of which Intent they fall under
  • Approval by the DAB will be required as 1/4 delegate approvals required for a Protocol Upgrade to move to a vote
  • The DAB will be expected to provide plain english explanation of Protocol Upgrades
0 voters
1 Like
5

I believe the DAB is a vital part of surfacing and simplifying technical information to the GC and the Collective as a whole. I am happy to see this initiative renewed.

I hope to see more polls being utilized as its a great way to gauge the collectives thoughts.

6

This is a tough one.

I have read both proposals by Zach and by Ed and they are both stellar.

Taking into account that Zach helped Ed with his proposal and Zach was there in the previous round would love to see them both work on it.

But in the end only one can be chosen.

I got tipped to vote for Ed’s proposal since the overall compensation per member is a bit more generous which I believe is warranted without being excessive.

And the desciption of the DAB that Ed described appeals a bit more to me.

But I can’t emphasize enough that both proposals are really good and it’s a hard vote.

7

First of all, thank you to both applicants for their detailed explanations. When we consider both proposals, we find that Zach’s proposal, in particular, introduces some novel roles that we believe fit well with the community and ecosystem. With his experience in various fields, including security, we believe Zach will add significant value. Moreover, both proposals described KPIs well and offered a cumulative approach. The proposed operational budgets are quite acceptable, but the efficiency created with a relatively small budget will play a key role. Given these factors, the novel roles and their expected outcomes have shifted our preference slightly towards Zach, along with his efficient budget management. Therefore, we will vote in favor of Zach in this proposal.