Rebranding the Governance Meeting to Giveth DAC Meeting

yeah well.. no, it never really was the governance circle meeting. :) Or we would have weekly discussed topics like Openblock explorer now, scalingnow PLUS the documentation and implementation of rewarddao procedures (see our last discussion during the voting!), roles meeting, unicorn dac logic, holacracy implementation etc. I would LOVE to have such a meeting, but that's not what this meeting is. This is our Giveth DAC meeting, but YES you are correct that management = governance. That is why this meeting is often/mostly steered by the governance circle, bcs their job is to experiment with and document all sorts of governance, incl the governance of the Giveth DAC. If that makes any sense :) It's actually another reason to change the name of this meeting, this meeting should be led more & more by the Giveth DAC and less and less by the Governance Circle.

Ps. "that the Unicorn room is for the Giveth DAC 'core people', with governance being managed via Loomio and the Governance Circle / Meeting." --> this is also correct, hence my proposal. A Giveth DAC meeting to steer the Giveth DAC with the Giveth DAC 'core people' (and anyone interested) makes more sense. The Gov Circle meeting never existed, but I hope it will one day.

So there's Governance for policy and guidelines.. and management - that feels like the Roles meeting.

deleting & editing my comment bcs I'm now only getting exactly what you mean - yes, that is a good point and very correct. In an ideal world I feel the Giveth DAC meeting should feel emptier & emptier, until it is just a community fireside chat to catch up or flag things or circles should follow up on and/or it evolves into a weekly roles meeting (that already seeps in a bit at the beginning now with the 'this is what I did last week' - to me often the most valuable part of the meeting - sharing & cross polinating). But anyways, my proposal was just a name change, but I love all the great feedback & thoughts, it shows that there indeed is a need for clearer structures.

I think it makes sense, I'm not into closed meetings we have built systems to allow anyone to come in and hang out and the "Gov" meeting has been really fulfilling the role of governance for the DAC, and now that the DAC has a campaign, i think its fitting... especially if we spell it out: The Giveth Decentralized Altruistic Community Meeting, it handles the governance of the DAC and if there is time, acts as a hang out sesh

Hmm, categories are always an issue in my head. Taxonomies break. The four circles interrelate but because initiatives are kinda grey theres always some form of cross over.

I would be happy for the rename if the meeting will be the "meta" meeting from which process are redefined (the process for processes). To quote an opinion from a published guy: "using people to leverage a refined process multiplies production, but using people as a solution to a poor processes multiplies problems" - four hour work week.

Big fan of that book :) Clear processes is indeed what this proposal is about. But.. the idea is not to make this a meta meeting to talk about processes. Unless you mean the practical implementation of processes in the Giveth DAC. The discussion about the processes we'll experiment with should happen in a future - not yet existing - gov circle meeting.

Ok I think what I'm hearing here is the proposal that gov meeting shouldn't be called gov meeting because it does the work of actually governing the Giveth DAC rather than just discussing governance as a topic... By that logic, the comms meeting should not be called the comms meeting nor the dapp the dapp mtg... we all do the actual tasks of of our work's domain as well as discuss theory of our domains in each of these meetings, so idk how gov is any different. I think there is a LOT of governance that goes down in this meeting and therefore would lose some clarity to strip it's name. The gov meeting is one of the most strictly held structures of any of the meetings we have (stringent proposal flow of rounds and no cross talk, very clear distinction between proposal time and fireside chat time). For that reason I think the name "Giveth DAC" doesn't express what's going on in this meeting or fit the structure of it really, it's too general and casual.

hey loie, will read and answer one by one, thx for all of the feedback! - I would DEFINITELY keep the structure. That structure usage (which is a holacratic best practice) is actually a pure example of good governance circle initiatives. The content however is not about these procedures or the experimentation of governance. The content is indeed governing the DAC. Just like the content of the comms circle is comms (and is governed through the use of the github issues), vojtech has his own gov mechanism, so does social coding. The content for all of these meetings is different however. Hope this clarifies a bit.

Kris, I also hear you citing the published goals of the gov circle "This is what the Governance circle is about: "Giveth aims to...etc" as proof that the name Governance Meeting doesn't fit the governance circle, but maybe this is just more of an indication that how the gov circle is expressed on paper (in the writing you cite here, is that from the website? the wiki?) isn't accurate to the active goals of this circle... so maybe it's more the text about the gov circle that needs to change rather than the name of the gov meeting...

This is indeed the text on the site and is a summary of the goals of the governance circle as written in the goals doc, yeah. :) Experimenting with & documenting governance. (goal 1) and then improving the ethereum commons (goal 2). I think we can do loads more when it comes to the gov circles goals, but for that well, we first need to create the space (and in the future some extra roles even). So yeah, I do think it's accurate to the active goals. But I get that it is confusing. We are the DAC and the governance circle job is to model the DAC (for others in the future), that is also why we have experiments like the unicorn dac, for others to copy it if succesful. The strategy for such experiments could be discussed, challenged and improved in future governance circle meetings, just like rewarddao strategy, roles meeting procedure, etc etc. The Giveth DAC meeting should be (and is) about the Giveth DAC in practice (michael describes it good in his comment), not the theory/strategy for DACs.

I do however see these: "At the same time, when we run into problems with our projects, we look outwards and unite people through initiatives such as scaling, signaling, block explorers and the decentralization of everything!" and wish there was a place that was more accessible to talk about all of these things, when I read these initiative examples it feels distant to think of a place where these are openly discussed, I usually just overhear Griff talking about them in his various meetings and doesn't feel like people are being actively invited into this convo within Giveth despite it being a big part of our goals...

yup, hence the proposal. I'm mostly kinda involved, but we all should be, will also take some of the workload away from griff and/or at least allow us to document them even more.

aaand I'm wary of this phenomenon of "let's rename this cuz then it feels like we're making real change!" ... I'm not saying that's for sure what's happening here, but I have been scouring as you can see and I can't find another reason to do this rename, so I'm not attracted to renaming it, I think it'll create a false sense of productivity. If we want a meeting that acts as "the gov circle meeting" in the ways you describe we are missing, Kris, then why don't we just start that meeting?

:) hell yes! and I think you should lead it actually :) or be a very active participant, like me. So no, big time not a 'fake sense of productivity' proposal, just a small tiny change to create clarity for outsiders and a space for more governance circle initiatives.

Do we have evidence of any outsiders being confused by calling our gov meeting a gov meeting?

I would maybe be more into this proposal if there was built in a proposal to start that meeting, ie: "Move general governance modalities and tools discussion to the name Governance Meeting and host the previously named gov meeting at this new name: xxxx"

That could have been the proposal, but it isn't. Because I don't have the bandwidth to lead such an extra meeting. I would however be a very, very active participant. Renaming the meeting to what it actually is, is however my domain (clear/correct comms), hence that limited tiny proposal, to kick it off. ;-)

Comment to @michaelroberts - I think you give a perfect explanation of what the Giveth DAC meeting should be and well, actually already is :) Reason however to not call it a team meeting is bcs we're not a team, we're a (decentralized altruistic) community. :) The difference (apart from the corporate connotations) is as griff mentions: we don't do closed meetings, the entire community is welcome. Another topic that to me is linked to the community aspect of that meeting is our values. (the fact that we're value-based makes that we are not a DAO but a DAC). The most interesting discussions we had during that meeting were to me at its core linked to values anyways.

Thank you Kris for opening this discussion! Actually I don't care sooo much about branding of the meeting, but as the attentive Loomio reader knows, reducing dependency on this meeting was one of the prime goals when we started to use Loomio.

In that sense - this meeting should have gotten a fresh coat of paint long ago - along with a customized agenda that fits best our needs.

Recently I suggested some other types of meetings with different timeframes and it would be nice to discuss this further - these are really topics that could also be integrated into the DAC meeting and don't have to be standalone:
- Strategy Meeting
- Roles Meeting
- Something regular about code, troubleshooting, nerdstuff
- Updates about finance, opportunities, circle activity, ...

This might seem a lot, but could divvy it out among the meetings and maybe make another day in the week an alternating topic meeting. We tried this before, but with different people - maybe even newer Unicorns want to host a meeting?

To keep things transparent and easy I'd divide up these very good points indeed under the existing meetings.. some of this fits in the DAC meeting, some in social coding, some in dapp, some in a hopefully future governance circle meeting I'd say. My only goal is to create the space to have such an extra meeting in the future, when we do.. the circle is round ;-) and we have a tight structure with lots of room to experiment in those meetings with the content.

There is a Social Coding sync meeting every other Tuesday - thinking this might be the "something regular about code" you speak of...

The social coding sync is much about the actual projects and dev support for those, but I would love if social coding also hosted different regular talks - I meant more in the sense of general technology talks and impromptu tutorials. There is lots of interesting stuff that falls through the cracks usually. I.e. how transactions or gas work, gow to call a smart contract directly, a comparison between web3 javascript libraries, ways to inject web3, how to leverage metamask or universal login, a crash course to ipfs, how to use a dappnode in production, ens and reverse ens checks, etc, etc. ... its neverending.

That's make sense. I guess my point would just be to use a name not an acronym.. so call it Giveth Community meeting then.. Its much easier for newbie's to the Giveth community in IMHO. Also re: Lorelei points, I can understand her rationale as well, which in my mind would leave a gap for a more general community meeting.. but I'm not about to propose yet another meeting.. I'll just say as a newbie, I find there is a slight overlap between the comms and governance meetings.. I feel we do an 'around the table' to see what people are up in both meetings and I'm not sure that is necessary. However, if two separate meetings are indeed necessary, I will throw it out there to encourage meeting hosts to make meetings 30 minutes in total as a friendly challenge to keep meetings really focused and concise because I think most people don't like meetings except for 'managers'. Also I would suggest the role of note-taker and even meeting facilitator should rotate to give everyone a chance.. but that's not critical just an idea that I've seen in the past that can work well.

Open to Giveth Community Meeting :) reasoning is that we are the Giveth DAC and that we have been forcefeeding that term a bit to people. All for shorter and more focused meetings. And I agree, sometimes comms overlaps a bit in topics, bcs they're not discussed in this meeting (or in a gov circle meeting that doesn't exist yet :) ). One day I'd like that meeting to pure comms but right now it's also often a bit of a community meeting. Strict mgmt never really works at giveth I learned and learned from :)