Clarification on Point 6 & 7 of DAO Handbook

I’m getting confused between the visual representation of the relationships of the entities that equate all of “this” (Foundation, DAO, SC, Administrators)

In particular between Point 6 & 7 I think some clarity is required.

totally get that the “Foundation” is the legal entity. That is clear in point 6.

However in Point 7 we begin to delinerate roles

The Foundation (essentially a trinity of relationships) legally formed as an entity

  • SC (supports the legal enty of the Foundation by providing oversight of the Administrators)

so it seems to mere that there should be a dotted line in the Visual of point 6 to show that connection and also probably the Administrator bubble should be beneath the SC not to the right of the Foundation bubble)

  • The Administrators…this is where the real confusion comes in (besides the above relationship diagram discrepancy)

According to:

The handbook is interchanging words to say something when in fact each of those terms have their own definition, function, and relationship within the context of “this thing called Guard Foundation”

The language is such that is reads that the “Foundation” (which is a legal entity) is responsible for administering the DAO’s (the community members’) decisions (proposals voted approved) …

but it is not the Foundation’s direct responsbility as the Foundation is the legal structure (entity)…

Rather it is the Administrator’s responsibility to, well administer :slight_smile:

…which according to the last sentence of point 7 is Webslinger.

Websligher is NOT the entity…they are the Administrator that (I assume) has been contracted to provide the services listed

Therefore I think this language needs to be cleaned up in the Handbook to reflect and be in congruence with Point 6.

IF what I am saying makes sense to the community…SC, is this something I need to put forth as a GFP as it (theoretically) is a change to the governing documentation? Or since it doesn’t change governance itself, merely clarifies it…that is something an SC member can update (ie push a few buttons on Discourse and type a few words and update a pretty picture)

2 Likes

The SC can review these items - I don’t think it would require a GFP for revisions.

Errors can be revised without a GFP most of the time.

Since the resources in question were created to articulate the governance documents, then a GFP isn’t needed to revise the adjunct resources, it would be to revise the Governance Documents and then would be subject to lawfulness.

2 Likes

Hey Jason,

I’ve reviewed your post and also the handbook, and made these modifications:

You mentioned that the graphic doesn’t align well with the written portion of the handbook, specifically how one of the roles of the special council is oversight of the foundation administrators. To better reflect that, as suggested, SC was put above the foundation administrators.

You also shared that point 7 was not in congruence with point 6, and while point 7 was attempting to delineate the roles, the description of the administrator section was also talking about the foundation at the same time as the administrator. To add more clarification to this section, I moved the part talking about the foundation itself to the foundation section, and kept the part talking about the administrators by itself.

All these updates can be seen in our handbook!

1 Like

Hey Gregory!

Off the top of my head the visual now looks much more in line with what I recall reading.

Even if it is slightly off, I think the updated visual clearly communicates the experience thus far!

Good job man.

Thanks for taking action on this.

Much appreciated!
Jason