Inclusion: Feb 18, 2020

In this call, we explored who should be in a governing body. A good deal of the call covered the Ethereum Marketing DAO, and we also discussed “exclusion” in the Genesis DAO, and a bit about Commons Stack “Praise” points sysem.

The questions we wanted to focus on are “Who should be included?” As an example, you could think of a lake with people who live on the lake, people who live nearby, a factory upstream that might be polluting the lake, people who work at that factory, tourists who come just to visit, fishermen, environmental activists, local government, national government, etc. All of these people may or may not have some governing power in the lake. Rather than talk about theory, we focused on DAOs that we belong to, which was enlightening.

Marketing DAO:

    1. Volunteers joined the DAO and then a body of 6 people was elected/volunteered to be the committee that decides how to govern the DAO.
    1. The DAO itself will be made up of contributors who put their money into the DAO and then can vote on its use.
    1. The volunteers who are setting up the governing structures don’t actually have voting power, unless they contribute to the marketing DAO.
    1. The power is in the hands of the financial contributors, not experts in marketing or people who are affected by the actions of the DAO (for example, all Ethereum holders)
    1. People who make proposals to the DAO, similarly, may not have any voting power and even if they have successful proposals that fulfill the purpose of the DAO, they would not gain reputation to vote (at least not how it is constructed now)

For the Genesis DAO we discussed the idea of exclusion and what it meant to have rights to be included.

  • The Genesis DAO chat / forum is not inside the DAO governance itself, and was previously moderated by someone who was assigned by an outside entity.
  • Some participants were banned from the forum for supposedly disruptive behavior by this single moderator.
  • Recently the DAO members reinstated this person to the discussion board.
  • We discussed whether it was this person’s “right” to be able to participate, and where the boundaries should be for rights versus privileges.
  • In private clubs and companies, there are guidelines and it is not a human right.
  • For participation in governance of one’s country, it is clearly a right. One of the group participants had his passport taken away by his government because he had spoken out against them. This was clearly a violation of his rights as a citizen – but in an online chatroom this is legally not the case.
  • Some participants still felt that kicking a participant out of the chatroom was a violation of that person’s right to participate in an open forum.

Commons Stack

  • Commons Stack has a kind of “reputation” token of Praise that is given out to people who have contributed in some way.
  • At any time, someone can “dish praise” to another person in the forum.
  • Periodically (I think every month), the governing council of Commons Stack looks at the people who were dished Praise, and decides how to divide the Praise among those people.
  • Commons Stack is a centralized company, so there is no intention to make this process more democratic at this time. There is a sense that by keeping it private, the recipients of Praise are quite happy and don’t compare themselves to one another. This avoids dispute.
  • Praise is not a monetary currency but will be used as a kind of reputation/ voting right in the future when there is voting in the DAO.
  • Praise allows Commons Stack to include people as voters according to their contributions to the project.