Hey Gavin, Sergey from cyber~Congress here. I took part in the call and here are some points I build upon, that might be of interest to the mission and the actual delivery of that mission:
(In no particular order of importance)
- I believe it’s uber important to be aware of the dangers that any working group in a decentralized project can have. Hence, it is vital, IMO, to get across the message that the mission of the group is by no mean “to govern”, but “to listen”
- I think that 2 of the most important parts are, of course, education and participation of the whole community in governance
- It is vital IMO to think of the working group, not just in terms of the cosmos hub, but to be able to listen across the whole ecosystem, especially with the coming of the IBC (for example, right now in cyber, we are trying to solve the puzzle of having our community to take part in having a vote with our cosmos validator, even though theoretically that would mean off-chain voting ((although this process can later be formalized through the local chain governance or IBC))
- Someone mentioned manuals. I think manuals do exist. They are called democracy, communism, marxism, capitalism, etc - and they have all failed in one way or the other, hence we are all here. And I agree with Sunny here, rather than making manuals and going the bureaucratic way, we need to think of how to achieve what was said during the call
- I like what Hyung and yourself proposed - GitHub as a backend and a front for greater participation. I will share the idea here, hopefully, @b-harvest will not mind, as this is great for “delivering” rather than discussing:
- create an issue
- discussion continues on the issue
- “someone” takes the job to create well descriptive documentation on the issue with clear pros/cons explanation(like ADR in github repo)
- the issue becomes “pull request” with actual codebase implementation. it is the actual proposal phase in governance process
- extra) the worker “someone” should have some incentives to work on the selected issue?
I would just add to this another role:
- listener/feedbacker. A person from the working group who can be motivated and goes to the communities to get not just simply feedback on what the working group proposes, but actual ideas for proposals, and formalises those into something the working group can discuss, document as per above and deliver as a proposal for the community to decide on (my idea behind this a) participation is weak b) governance as “speaking”, even in democracy, rather than “listening” has failed
- Lastly, about increasing participation. I am not going to go into details. Will drop a link, which hopefully you can check out in your spare time. This idea is called holographic consensus, and it’s been talked about on an ETH based project and is in work, AFAIK. The idea is to mix governance with prediction markets. I strongly advise to check this out (its two parts):
Hope this helps!
BR,
Serj