Fantastic summary. Allow me to utilize this wrench i’m holding and inject it into the discussion once again. This is a fundamentally different approach to governing Nu than what has been the process for many of us over the course of a year and a half (In a good way. I’m sold.). My first concern is that if we put forth a rigid structure for participating in the DAO it could be a very messy transition. Maybe this is an unwarranted concern, but I just wanted to raise it for discussion purposes. Before we go diving into shallow water.
If you look at previous motions they’re very free form. Most people here are volunteering their time trying to emulate roles that organizations have full time employees for. Even paid project members are only working part time and have other full time responsibilities. If the project grows the burden of supporting the services we offer weighs heavier on participants in managing those services (who are unfortunately rather limited at this point). Development, Nu properties, marketing, support, documentation, liquidity. There’s a lot of moving parts here and up until this idea was presented there was no “way” of doing things.
So I say all that to set the stage for my concerns. I know you’re new, so I wanted to provide a little background and put some context in for everyone else. I see you work for Google. I’m assuming they don’t have similar issues of having extremely limited time, money, and people to throw at important projects. We do.
I see implementing NuLaw as a really important project. To me, it’s huge. What you’ve presented is the direction we need to go. It’s a maturing process of the project and I think it helps to lead the way in governance for not only Nu, but possibly other projects with voting systems that could utilize the implementation. (B&C is on the way). There will be growing pains, but how can we make this implementation more transition friendly? That it can still embrace the free form nature of the current model while adopting this more rigid proposition over time. We don’t have the capability to literally stop what everyone is working on, call an ‘all-hands’ meeting, and instruct everyone to start doing it this way.
We’re going to need to build tools that make it easier for people to do things the “right” way in submitting motions and grants in the future. Also displaying all of the content from the documents we produce. People tend to move in and out of the community over the course of days, weeks, and months. It’s going to take time for everyone to catch onto these changes and adjust their habits. In the mean time we’ll still need to be passing motions/grants in the process of implementing all this without the changes impeding us. Also comes into play that some people just don’t have the technical knowledge of working with git, Github, hashing and other elements required in the new proposal.
This is going to be a common sentiment for a lot of people regarding the changes and implementation. Now maybe my concerns are unfounded. I could be over thinking all this. I think it would be beneficial though to consider that the structure should allow for more free form elements to be included. Not only for the transitional purposes but also because not all voted motions will be for NuLaws. They can also be to garner the support of an idea. Meaning we can vote and pass motions to encourage more debate and discussions on topics.
Or Similar to the process of petitions in the UK invoking debates among MPs. These motions wouldn’t be written into NuLaw in the same way that other contractual based motions would be.
So, how do we allow for this? I think we make it a two tiered solution. If you want your motion to be directly included into NuLaws you educate yourself on the process. Submit a PR with the diff hash and all required information included. Ask everyone to vote directly on that. It’s the process moving forward and fastest way to get your language into the book.
For others that prefer the more informal method, or for motions that are to garner sentiments on issues we allow for the existing process. Just put together some text, hash it and ask people to vote on it. If it passes then people with the understanding of using the first process would take that text and rewrite it into the proper format. This would have to then be voted on again to make sure the rewrite matches the language and spirit of the previous motion to be included in the law book. The verification script could be updated to recognize this type of event as well. The new PR would need to include the B64 encoded text of the passed motion in a unique field that it checks for. If the field exists it decodes the B64, hashes it, and checks to see that a hash with that text passed. Then it checks to see if the new PR was passed as well. If so then it’s good to go in the books.
The NuLaws system doesn’t even have to be “legally binding” until the process flows very smoothly. We can allow for the community to continue operating how it does while builders and maintainers of the NuLaws system refines the process (however long that takes). As motions and grants pass we can simply ask shareholders to also symbolically run the second vote of the two-vote system through. Then at some point when the process is matured we can run a final motion to vote the NuLaws repository as the “Network Constitution” if you will.
