It’ll be nice to have a Social Scientist in the ranks who resides in the Community WG. Ecosystem WG could have a resident protocol researcher and developer. Public Goods WG could have an Impact Researcher helping ENS with DAO2DAO relations.
This has to be decided by the DAO. I am sure TNL can recommend equivalent compensation level that they pay to their own dev staff weighted by the time commitment. If such a group existed, the steward should be full-time employed; we will see this first hand in the Analytics & Research subWG tester.
I don’t think so. Most of the tooling exists already in the bigger realm of Data Analytics, it is only a matter of managing them and putting right tools to solve appropriate problems.
No. What Gitcoin uses is rudimentary at best – no offence to @mmurthy. We had a call about a month ago where we discussed how we can elevate the reputation model used by Gitcoin and make it better. This is my suggestion for better, which is objectively better.
That’s a discussion for another day when this WG has a chance to be founded. I’ll have a think on it.
Well, there were talks by Top.gg CEO in Amsterdam about bots that we could use to gauge our discord engagement. There was a very good academic talk by Amy Jung into DAO structures. Peter from 1k(x) gave a pretty cool talk about fractalised Governance. I mean there was a whole day of talks on DAOs at DAOist GGG. That surely falls under Research. I haven’t yet mentioned the Hackathons.
But the argument here is that you didn’t like not seeing ENS in Amsterdam so surely that’s a collab/in the remit of Community and Ecosystem, no? Or at least an attempt at coordinating with them vs adding this to the scope of the working group.
Hence my advice on not taking on too much so you can.
As stated multiple times, there is no need to form a new working group.
I am not convinced that there is a need for a ‘Hover WG’ to facilitate the inclusion of such DAO participants. To the extent that you want more specialized expertise within working groups, there is nothing stopping you from identifying people you would like to see in each working group, and encouraging them to put their names forward to become Stewards or otherwise encourage them to form subgroups.
We should also encourage greater collaboration between working groups, but again that doesn’t require a specialised ‘Hover WG’. This simply requires greater collaboration across the DAO and more of a conscious effort by stewards and subgroup leads to facilitate it.
I agree. I am not asking for a Hover Group. Simply answering questions from Simona that she asked. You never know, might be useful in the future. A good discussion is not a loss.
