Governance is minimized to focus purely on two areas:
The entire DAO will be organized as sub-DAOs and ideally two-pizza teams:
Every 3.5 months (April, August, December), the DAO engages in a two week intensive period of governance participation revolving around:
During these two weeks, everyone in the sub-DAOs is expected to participate in shared discussions. If a team’s work is found to be ineffective or needs improvement, they either can quickly iterate their plans or are given a notice period for which they may continue on for another 4 months but need to iterate on their work plan.
When focusing on accelerating the progress of the DAO, the goal is to grow horizontally via more sub-DAOs (vs. growing vertically through working groups)
Through more sub-DAOs, the entire org can increase the number of teams trying new approaches to solving and innovating on existing problems and focuses while maintaining the same level of meta-organizational admin/overhead required to run. The competition is good.
Encourage new community members to join existing sub-DAOs or start new ones.
IMO, starting DAOs will still look fairly similar to how we start them right now:
But the key difference is that when the DAO looks to scale and accelerate the work that it’s undertaking, it does so via an open call for Sub-DAOs to apply for work as opposed to encouraging more member growth under functional working groups.
A protocol may still need its parameters to be tweaked, smart contracts upgraded, etc.
This is generally imo this is generally a far more straightforward side of protocol governance and can run in parallel to the sub-DAO processes.
Credit goes to James Young for most of the core ideas outlined here.