Co-Creation Sprint - Governance Structure Discussion

[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.