Co-Creation Sprint - Governance Structure Discussion

[Juansito]

Within this thread we will start discussing governance structure referring to:

• Execution Council
• Grants Committee
• Advisors Committee
• Foundation <> DAO relationship

In-depth post will be created at a later time.

[alexsotodigital]

Hi @Juansito;

Here is my proposal for ‘visualizing’ the different governance structures, following today’s co-creation session.

I tried to take it one step further toward simplicity to see if we are all understanding the same thing.

Some considerations:

• The arrows indicate the main action, but the link is clearly bidirectional in all cases. There should be a direct connection between all the structures.

• I believe that proposals should come from verified delegates. It is implied that the community of (unverified) delegates can participate in refining them.

• What I call “Governance Contributors” is what was previously understood as an ‘execution council’. All names can be changed. Here’s a space for brainstorming.

[kevinknielsen]

The one part, at least at face value, that we’re a bit apprehensive of is the Support Squad. We’ve seen similar structures in other DAOs where members come to get their slice of the incentives, but ultimately, nothing really ends up moving the needle for the DAO. We do think incentives structures like that can be good, we just need to make sure the quality aspect is there. So the Auditors will be very important in that regard. On the surface level, if the Foundation is going to invest financially in certain outputs, then working groups like the Execution Council or whatever we call it - those are the most valuable things.

Generally we’re also in favor of reducing organizational overhead/avoiding redundancy/avoiding excessive “structure creation” or terminology creation. If we can create a really efficient DAO structure with just a governance facilitator working group (i.e. execution council), accountability working group, security council, and DAO voters, we might be more biased towards that outcome. But happy to hear other opinions if we missed any key details regarding the Support Squad.

[404Gov]

I’m generally aligned with this proposed structure.

@alexsotodigital

I believe that proposals should come from verified delegates. It is implied that the community of (unverified) delegates can participate in refining them.

100% agree. Verified delegates should be more experienced and capable of drafting proposals that meaningfully advance the DAO’s objectives.

I just have a question about the Governance Contributors / Execution Council: what is this group’s role?

[404Gov]

The way I see it, the Support Squad’s role is to assist verified delegates with execution. This could include coordinating calls with relevant teams, amplifying proposals through social channels, and managing logistics such as adding calls to the Scroll calendar.

[alexsotodigital]

Hi there!

trying to keep the ball of co-creation in the air… here are some clarifications. Thanks @kevinknielsen and @404Gov for the pushback.

@kevinknielsen

If we can create a really efficient DAO structure with just a governance facilitator working group (i.e. execution council), accountability working group, security council, and DAO voters, we might be more biased towards that outcome.

I agree that the key isn’t in multiplying structures, but in differentiating functions. The idea behind separating Support Squad, Governance Contributors (a.k.a. Execution Council), and Delegate roles isn’t to build silos or redundant groups. It’s to clarify what type of work is being done, and what accountability it requires in terms of roles.

@alexsotodigital

More deeply, this isn’t about forming another “team” but rather distinguishing between different kinds of work.

• System 1 (execution) = 3-month gigs,
• System 3 (auditing) = 6-month or yearly cycles
• System 2 (support) = 12-month continuity (to build institutional memory and shared context).

You can think of this as a time-based modes of commitment, not silos nor legal wrappers.

More on these, here.

In practice, the same person might be playing multiple roles (and wearing different hats). These systems are not meant to be isolated departments but functional lenses to improve coordination and clarity.

@kevinknielsen, your point about a single integrated operational circle resonates with me. We’ve talked about the idea of a “general governance meeting” where all the different contributors (support, operations, auditing, foundation, etc.) report and coordinate together. No need for separate calls unless truly needed.

That’s why the Support Squad shouldn’t be seen as additional overhead. It’s just giving a name to work that’s already necessary, like documentation, coordination, logistics, or proposal amplification, so we can refine processes to reduce friction.

@404Gov

the Support Squad’s role is to assist verified delegates with execution.

@404Gov, you nailed the intent: Verified Delegates can absolutely take on operational responsibilities (in addition to fulfilling their basic responsibilities as delegates). It’s just that by doing so, they would be assuming a (new) role as Governance Contributor, or as Support Squad.

When they do, the idea is simply to define that role clearly, so the DAO knows what hat they’re wearing, how they’re being compensated, and how we evaluate outcomes. We name the hat, not the person.

@alexsotodigital

I propose to consider three contribution tracks:

1. Verified Delegate Responsibilities: voting, reviewing proposals and giving quality feedback to iterate them (+ whatever we decide needed)
2. Operational roles: Direct project-based work (e.g., leading research, creating content, organizing events, leading programs, onboarding users, driving business development, etc.)
3. Support roles: Governance infrastructure (e.g., writing summaries, improving documentation, coordinating working groups, facilitating co-creation and connection spaces)

That kind of transparency is what makes roles-based systems more flexible and accountable than fixed job positions. You don’t need to be “hired” into a full-time slot to contribute (wasting resources if there is not enough workload). You can step into a role when there’s work to be done, and step back when not.

Finally, I fully agree that Auditors will be crucial to ensure that any structure stays lean and focused on real value.

Anyway, I’d love to keep evolving this together.