BIP-006b - The First Brick 2.0

Status: Proposed

Co-Author(s): @Halstead a.k.a MillionBear, @n00bleLAND, @drmsxchns.eth, @aBinaryMind, @thatguytrey

Discussions (and full proposal)-to: Refer https://gov.buzzedbearhideout.com/t/bip-006-the-first-brick-2-0/566 and https://gov.buzzedbearhideout.com/t/bip-006-the-first-brick/468

Please note due to word limit count, this snapshot only contains a summary of the final proposal. To view the final proposal, click the above link for The First Brick 2.0.

Apologies, proposal is being resubmitted due no announcement in BBH discord to enable all bears to see and vote.

Created: 09/09/2021

Implementation: Immediate effect.

1.0 - Buzzed Summary: The proposal set forth here will define an organisational structure for the BBH. Designed with inspiration from the Index Coop, a proven and tested method of decentralised governance. This proposal will define the parameters for different working interest groups and their powers in relation to the BBH community and its resources.

2.0 - Abstract: The proposed change is to introduce titles for new working groups and broadly define their powers and responsibilities within the BBH community. If implemented, this proposal will lead to the creation of an official hierarchy, providing Bears with the structure and process they need to push forward their ideas. The proposed hierarchy is represented in the rudimentary figure detailed here: https://gov.buzzedbearhideout.com/t/bip-006-the-first-brick-2-0/566

3.0 - Motivation: As a community we have been bursting out with valuable and credible ideas that have the potential to further the BBH DAO. Unfortunately, it is rare that these ideas are followed through with. A large reason for this is that motivated community members lack the guidance and defined processes and procedures necessary to make their voices and ideas heard. This diminishes the effectiveness of the DAO and impedes upon our ability to accomplish community goals.

4.0 - Specification Overview: What it is that the proposal will do to solve the problem will be detailed in this section.

4.1 – Groups & Roles:

This is where the proposed working groups are defined and labelled. The labels are Pods, Committees and The Community. Please refer to the full proposal link for further explanation.

4.2 – Responsibilities:

In this section, the minimum non-negotiable requirements from Pods and Committees are set out. All groups/roles will be required to operate in accordance with one simple principle:

Growth & Improvement: Whatever the goals are for your group, they must be designed to further the financial, strategic, or social interests of the BBH community and its members.

Please refer to the linked document for details of the minimum requirements for the Pods, Committees and The Community.

4.3 - Limits & Power:

The powers sought by Committees must be adequately defined within the initial proposal. A committee operating outside of its remit may be disbanded following a community vote.

Additionally, the Community retains the right to end any working group at any time following the success of a community vote, irrespective of circumstances.

4.4 - Remuneration:

All members that form a Committee are entitled to retroactive remuneration for their work and services to the BBH community. This work will be assessed for its impact to the BBH and appropriate remuneration will be distributed based upon that assessment.

At present, a potential remuneration / reward system being considered is Coordinape.com. This has the potential to make some minor changes to this proposal but those should be explained within the BIP that proposes Coordinape.

5.0 - Rationale:

The proposal has been made because as a DAO we must protect ourselves from irresponsible use of community resources. After much consideration and discussion between the proposal team and even further conversation with our defi experts; we decided that a tiered group system enabling less restrictive oversight, but greater resource protection would be the ideal structure. This method would encourage more considered proposals that wish to utilise our resources but should also prevent voter fatigue from incessant, half-baked proposals.

Initially our proposal was a much more rigid structure with a single working group (a committee). It was designed to establish rules for the formation of committees and their election processes. Due to the reasons discussed above, it was decided this wouldn’t be an effective long-term solution.

6.0 - Technical Specification:

Refer full proposal.

7.0 - Test Cases:

A similar model of decentralised governance has been successfully tested and implemented at the Index Coop. A successful FTSE 500 organisation.

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.