Rebranding the Governance Meeting to Giveth DAC Meeting

yeah well.. no, it never really was the governance circle meeting. :) Or we would have weekly discussed topics like Openblock explorer now, scalingnow PLUS the documentation and implementation of rewarddao procedures (see our last discussion during the voting!), roles meeting, unicorn dac logic, holacracy implementation etc. I would LOVE to have such a meeting, but that's not what this meeting is. This is our Giveth DAC meeting, but YES you are correct that management = governance. That is why this meeting is often/mostly steered by the governance circle, bcs their job is to experiment with and document all sorts of governance, incl the governance of the Giveth DAC. If that makes any sense :) It's actually another reason to change the name of this meeting, this meeting should be led more & more by the Giveth DAC and less and less by the Governance Circle.

Ps. "that the Unicorn room is for the Giveth DAC 'core people', with governance being managed via Loomio and the Governance Circle / Meeting." --> this is also correct, hence my proposal. A Giveth DAC meeting to steer the Giveth DAC with the Giveth DAC 'core people' (and anyone interested) makes more sense. The Gov Circle meeting never existed, but I hope it will one day.

So there's Governance for policy and guidelines.. and management - that feels like the Roles meeting.

deleting & editing my comment bcs I'm now only getting exactly what you mean - yes, that is a good point and very correct. In an ideal world I feel the Giveth DAC meeting should feel emptier & emptier, until it is just a community fireside chat to catch up or flag things or circles should follow up on and/or it evolves into a weekly roles meeting (that already seeps in a bit at the beginning now with the 'this is what I did last week' - to me often the most valuable part of the meeting - sharing & cross polinating). But anyways, my proposal was just a name change, but I love all the great feedback & thoughts, it shows that there indeed is a need for clearer structures.

I think it makes sense, I'm not into closed meetings we have built systems to allow anyone to come in and hang out and the "Gov" meeting has been really fulfilling the role of governance for the DAC, and now that the DAC has a campaign, i think its fitting... especially if we spell it out: The Giveth Decentralized Altruistic Community Meeting, it handles the governance of the DAC and if there is time, acts as a hang out sesh

Hmm, categories are always an issue in my head. Taxonomies break. The four circles interrelate but because initiatives are kinda grey theres always some form of cross over.

I would be happy for the rename if the meeting will be the "meta" meeting from which process are redefined (the process for processes). To quote an opinion from a published guy: "using people to leverage a refined process multiplies production, but using people as a solution to a poor processes multiplies problems" - four hour work week.

Big fan of that book :) Clear processes is indeed what this proposal is about. But.. the idea is not to make this a meta meeting to talk about processes. Unless you mean the practical implementation of processes in the Giveth DAC. The discussion about the processes we'll experiment with should happen in a future - not yet existing - gov circle meeting.

Ok I think what I'm hearing here is the proposal that gov meeting shouldn't be called gov meeting because it does the work of actually governing the Giveth DAC rather than just discussing governance as a topic... By that logic, the comms meeting should not be called the comms meeting nor the dapp the dapp mtg... we all do the actual tasks of of our work's domain as well as discuss theory of our domains in each of these meetings, so idk how gov is any different. I think there is a LOT of governance that goes down in this meeting and therefore would lose some clarity to strip it's name. The gov meeting is one of the most strictly held structures of any of the meetings we have (stringent proposal flow of rounds and no cross talk, very clear distinction between proposal time and fireside chat time). For that reason I think the name "Giveth DAC" doesn't express what's going on in this meeting or fit the structure of it really, it's too general and casual.

hey loie, will read and answer one by one, thx for all of the feedback! - I would DEFINITELY keep the structure. That structure usage (which is a holacratic best practice) is actually a pure example of good governance circle initiatives. The content however is not about these procedures or the experimentation of governance. The content is indeed governing the DAC. Just like the content of the comms circle is comms (and is governed through the use of the github issues), vojtech has his own gov mechanism, so does social coding. The content for all of these meetings is different however. Hope this clarifies a bit.

Kris, I also hear you citing the published goals of the gov circle "This is what the Governance circle is about: "Giveth aims to...etc" as proof that the name Governance Meeting doesn't fit the governance circle, but maybe this is just more of an indication that how the gov circle is expressed on paper (in the writing you cite here, is that from the website? the wiki?) isn't accurate to the active goals of this circle... so maybe it's more the text about the gov circle that needs to change rather than the name of the gov meeting...

This is indeed the text on the site and is a summary of the goals of the governance circle as written in the goals doc, yeah. :) Experimenting with & documenting governance. (goal 1) and then improving the ethereum commons (goal 2). I think we can do loads more when it comes to the gov circles goals, but for that well, we first need to create the space (and in the future some extra roles even). So yeah, I do think it's accurate to the active goals. But I get that it is confusing. We are the DAC and the governance circle job is to model the DAC (for others in the future), that is also why we have experiments like the unicorn dac, for others to copy it if succesful. The strategy for such experiments could be discussed, challenged and improved in future governance circle meetings, just like rewarddao strategy, roles meeting procedure, etc etc. The Giveth DAC meeting should be (and is) about the Giveth DAC in practice (michael describes it good in his comment), not the theory/strategy for DACs.