Roadmap version 0.1
Full details on each roadmap area
The most important thing to think about with the suggestions from this roadmap is the short term priority areas. What do you think is the most important areas to focus on more in the short term?
See the full details for each roadmap area item and the overall objectives here - Product Development Roadmap - Catalyst Product Development
Provide your comments and feedback below!
Draft version - This is an initial draft version that aims to just share some initial ideas towards a product development roadmap. It will change and be updated based on community feedback.
Community led - There is nothing official about these ideas or roadmap. It is a completely community led initiative and only a suggestion. This approach has a number of objectives as outlined below. Anyone can choose to ignore this roadmap and any of the ideas presented. Alternatively anyone can also participate as much as they want to.
Work on what you want - This roadmap does not to prevent anyone from working on anything they want to in whatever order they want to.
Roadmap items are derived from existing analysis - Existing analysis on funding categorisation helped to highlight the importance of separating goals and objectives from funding categorisation. This roadmap inherits the results of that analysis.
Twitter - For updates on any of this work and more
Thanks for the great work as usual George.
The main short term roadmap priority I would highlight is -
Decision making - how are decisions made by the community (e.g. consensus with veto, voting etc). Is the decision making process transparent ? Are the community well-informed about decisions and how to participate ? Who is responsible for implementing a decision (accountability) ?
I understand that this could be included in your “Processes and Working Structures” category - but I just wanted to draw attention to this foundation of governance.
This is a really good point and suggestion! There’s definitely merit in breaking this out of the processes and working structure area. Detailing more of the potential scope in the near future should make it more obvious to see if that makes sense - my guess is it likely might be.
Processes and working structures handles how the community collaborates together, supports the ecosystem and gets work done and could also include decision making. Funding categorisations help deal with the incentive structures to support those processes and working structures.
Two larger areas around decision making:
- Processes and working structures - Concern is more internal to how Catalyst functions and how it is managed and operated and how the community and people working on Catalyst make decisions. Decisions should still be pushed to the edges though the interesting thing here is working out what decisions and responsibility makes sense to delegate to a cohort of people for practicality purposes that are less important and what things should be always community wide votes.
- Voting standards - This concerns the standards used in implementations for the community voting like the plutocratic upvote/downvote/abstain standard we’re currently using. These standards are targeted to the wider community in how votes are cast (same standards could be used anywhere however).
Decision making is also baked into every area in some capacity whether internal to those working on Catalyst or pushed externally to the wider community to vote on.
We could do a working group on this in the near future to look at scope to improve this roadmap and add further clarity on what makes sense grouping wise
I guess I approach this from first principles rather than designing a roadmap structure (both are worthwhile). So my ABC of Governance project, for example, will highlight conversation points and key questions around blockchain governance.
As you know Dor’s Voltaire principles include a few that relate to decision making such as “transparent and understandable”, “access to impartial data and information”, “clear rules and policies” etc. Some of these also cross over to voting standards.
I agree that decision making can be distributed, represented or delegated (not always direct democracy). The key here is consistency “clear rules and policies” - so participants are well-informed, capable and accountable.
Voting standards may vary with the introduction of dReps. And one interesting question in this context is whether the plutocratic condition of the general ADA vote will repeat itself in dReps.
Then there are other voting projects like Dripdropz which may be more appropriate for a DAO context given the lack of anon voting ?
I would be interested in providing feedback to a working group and will continue to produce relevant material in other projects.