Process for Establishing Formal Working Groups This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

Process for Establishing Formal Working Groups This proposal is now in status: PASSED. Voting Results: * Yes 93% 7,320,262 VP (147 votes) * No 6% 514,222 VP (9 votes) * Abstain 1% 7,704 VP (10 votes)

@MorrisMustang It looks complex, but it's closer to what LordLike is pointing out. I see your point, but we wanted to be very specific about the roles, responsibilities and explaining the method in which this process is based on, to be as clear and transparent as possible. The fundamentals and the reasoning behind this process are that better outcomes will come from a semi-structured process independent from the Core Teams, and that's only will be possible by assigning roles and responsibilities and with well defined objectives. Imo, in a decentralized enviornment, the way to do that is with a detailed and maybe over-inclusive procedure to get legitimacy. *"This approach will be one way to tackle and escalate different issues toward concrete outcomes, but it will not become the exclusive one, since each community member will still have the possibility to adopt or choose other ways to channel their needs, discussions or concerns."* I can't recall if I posted this in other place, but just to take into account, these are the main objectives of this first "iteration": 1. Implementation of a pathway for community members to create working groups from existing proposals within the dApp. 2. Setting up of a space for working groups to be ordered and presented such as Proposals and Grants pages. 3. Provide an open space for the working group to serve as an index, to upload files, to assign roles, add and onboard collaborators, share information, and visualize its progression. Let me know if you have more questions!

Imo it only at first sight looks complex. Anyone still will be able to escalate proposal or make new one. I think this initiative will speed up processes and will help to prevent proposals from being abandoned.

While I understand the nature and intent of this proposal, I do wonder if this overcomplicates what's going on here and adds too much overhead to making progress. If the process is too complex, we are going to scare away new people from wanting to participate in the DAO.

Also: Working Groups are temporary. They are not permanent. They are in effect decentralized, because anyone who tables a substantive issue, measured by the ability to have it pass as a Pre-Proposal Poll, can facilitate a working group on that issue.

IMO Potential way to prevent risks associated with a centralized working group is to promote community participation. All community members have the right and should be encouraged to participate in the working group, and if they notice any problematic ideas or central authority risks, they can raise concerns and provide feedback through various channels such as Discord, DAO Forum comments, and posts. Furthermore, if anyone notices that the working group is abusing the DAO or leading in the wrong direction, they are eligible to propose an alternative approach(their own gov proposal and work group) and present evidence to support their argument and solution. This can encourage healthy debate and enable the community to choose the most suitable course of action for the DAO.

This process seems well written and thought-out. You have made it clear this it not binding and it isn't a prerequisite for an initiative to move forward, however, my fear is this is a slippery slope. Currently you see in U.S. Politics that similar working groups are used for lobbying. Questionnaires in these working groups can also be tainted. Those who believe in **honesty** who enter a working group that is acting with premeditated intentions for a particular outcome, would essentially feel left out or even pushed away by the people leading who are trying to lead to a particular outcome. Many will say these working groups are a good thing. Many will say this won't happen. Many will say they will be objective. However we are humans. The oversight of voters for these working groups are going to do the same things we are seeing in U.S. Politics today with **recommendations** from these working groups for a particular policy. While they have no binding outcomes or influence as this proposal implies, it actually does. People will source their arguments from the working groups as an authority. Centralized Control of these working groups, rather than open discussion seems like it would lead to particular outcomes and for those who didn't participate, would be ignorant to how it was conducted. The idea that voters make intelligent decisions is absurd. Try getting them to read a whole proposal, but now you are also going to get them to try and read a report from a working group? Come on let's be real here. Look where we are today. Many people put **trust** in things they shouldn't. I personally believe formalization of this is against web3 as it will create an illusion of authority that is not warranted. Open Discussions via Discord Channels without a centralized Working Group Facilitators should be allowed. Censorship on those channels should be forbidden as well. This will allow for those who are active in the community to know what is going on and give them the ability to make their own opinions rather than having a small group of people give their working group recommendations.

This proposal is a big step in the formation of DAO governance. I [see](https://forum.decentraland.org/t/dao-strategy-and-roadmap/18568) that DAO must have a clear and transparent governance structure that clearly defines how decisions are made, how voting is conducted, and how members can participate in the decision-making process. Currently, DAO [work groups](https://discord.gg/MAZPREjJJ2) already have significant results ! :clap:

Appreciate detailed answers. :+1:

Hey @web3nit! Thanks for your questions. I’ll try to answer them below: **Working groups will be public and open, everyone will be able to see process and results ?** Yes, 100% public and open for everyone to see the whole process and results. **Who is the contributor of proposal who can move pre-proposal to a working group ? Who can decide if a user is contributor of proposal or not ?** Contributors = Co-authors. We’re reserving the first 30 days of the prerogative to promote a working group for the Author and Co-Author(s), in order to prevent this becoming a roadblock. *“Working Group Formation - Working groups can be formed through the promotion of a Pre-Proposal Poll or a Draft Proposal to a Working Group by the author or a contributor to the poll. If the proposal is not promoted to the next stage or to a Working Group by its author or contributors in the term of 30 days, every community member will be enabled to promote it to a Working Group. A working group, however, is in no way a prerequisite for an initiative to move forward through the governance process, and pre-proposal Polls can be escalated to a Draft Proposal without a Working Group.”* **Why by default it is written that primary working groups facilitator can be selected from dao facilitation team and not from authors/contributors of the proposal or their representatives ? Can they also be selected as a primary facilitator ? What is the process for selection primary facilitator?** Quite the opposite: *“3.1) Facilitator Selection - Proposal author/contributors self-select or appoint a representative to facilitate the working group.”* *“Unless specifically requested to abstain, a member of the DAO Facilitation Team will support the Working Group Facilitator(s), and may be selected by proposal authors to serve as the Working Group’s primary facilitator.”* As a Working Group can only be started by an author or contributor of a Pre Proposal Poll (30 initial days), they’re the ones that will have initial governing functions to assign the working group facilitator with a high grade of discretion. That also means that they will have the prerogative to self-select or appoint a facilitator. The DAO Facilitators will only be a support reference. **If authors or contributors abstain from selecting primary facilitator, how he will be selected ?** Selecting a Facilitator is a requisite for a working group. But considering this exceptional but still possible situation, I would say that this falls into this part of the article 3.1. Meaning that if the working group doesn’t have a Facilitator, a Committee Member or a DAO Facilitator will temporarily fill that role by default, agree on next steps, and lead the process for appointing a new facilitator. That also means that the DAO Facilitator itself could be confirmed as the facilitator if there’s an agreement among all working group participants. *“If the designated Working Group Facilitator quits at any stage, a DAO Facilitator or a DAO Committee Member will fulfill the role and decide with involved community members if the working group should remain active.”* **What will be the criteria for selecting working groups participants ? Everyone will be able to participate ?** Everyone will be able to join a working group and actively participate, plus there won’t be a pre-defined criteria for calling participants. However, it is a responsibility of the Author, Contributors and Facilitator(s) to engage community members considered valuable for discussing the specific topic. Besides that, the DAO Facilitation Squad will announce it via Twitter, newsletter and in the following Town Hall. **How many representatives can be appointed by proposal authors/contributors to facilitate in working group?** There’s no formal limit in this iteration. Most reasonable approach would be to appeal to common sense (2-3 facilitators as a maximum).

**Annex A: Role of The Working Group Facilitator** 1. Designing and distributing questionnaires or surveys: The facilitator is responsible for creating the questions or problems that will be posed to the group, and for distributing the questionnaires or surveys to the participants. 2. Managing the data: The facilitator is responsible for collecting and compiling the responses from the participants, and for creating and sharing the summary statistics of the responses. Ensuring transparency of data is essential, and this will be approached in more detail if advanced to the Binding Governance Proposal stage. 3. Communicating with the participants: The facilitator is responsible for keeping the participants informed of the progress of the study, and for answering any questions or concerns they may have. 4. Facilitating the discussion: The facilitator is responsible for leading the group through the process of discussing the responses, and forming a second round of questions for solutioning. 5. Keeping records: The facilitator should keep records of the process, the results, and the decisions made, so that it can be used for future reference. 6. Facilitating the decision-making process: The facilitator should help the group to reach a conclusion based on the responses and help the group to draft implementable and well-formed governance proposals. 7. Additionally, a facilitator should be able to keep the process moving forward and ensure that all voices are heard, and that the process progresses in a timely manner.

Hi Mattimio and Fehz, thank you for this proposal, have several questions: 0. Working groups will be public and open, everyone will be able to see process and results ? 1. Who is the contributor of proposal who can move pre-proposal to a working group ? 2. Who can decide if a user is contributor of proposal or not ? 3. Why by default it is written that primary working groups facilitator can be selected from dao facilitation team and not from authors/contributors of the proposal or their representatives ? Can they also be selected as a primary facilitator ? What is the process for selection primary facilitator ? If authors or contributors abstain from selecting primary facilitator, how he will be selected ? > Unless specifically requested to abstain, a member of the DAO Facilitation Team will support the Working Group Facilitator(s), and may be selected by proposal authors to serve as the Working Group’s primary facilitator. If the designated Working Group Facilitator quits at any stage, a DAO Facilitator or a DAO Committee Member will fulfill the role and decide with involved community members if the working group should remain active. 4. What will be the criteria for selecting working groups participants ? Everyone will be able to participate ? > A general call for Working Group participants will be issued via Discord, DCL DAO Twitter, and pathways for joining will be established, likely including integration with the Governance dApp from the Pre-Proposal Poll. (See Figure 3 in Comments below) 5. How many representatives can be appointed by proposal authors/contributors to facilitate in working group?

Figure 1 (Working Group Formation) **** Figure 2 (Working Group Creation) **** Figure 3 (Working Group Dashboard) **** Figure 4 (Delphi-Informed Method) **** As a reminder: All wire frames are initial sketches, and the final implementation may differ from those displayed above. They are intended to serve as an example of how the process could be organized.