by 0xaca8fbbdddfce169114f344d8ee739bde665f4f4 (Seanny)
Should the problem/opportunity outlined be refined and taken to the next level?
I feel more work can be done in expanding our documentation as a DAO; both internally, and externally.
External Documentation examples:
Currently, the only reference to Decentraland’s DAO on wikipedia is the following:
Users have minted NFTs of avatars with slurs in their names, and at one point the name “Jew” was for sale for $362,000. In November 2021 the community held a vote on whether to add “Hitler” to the banned names list, but there were not enough votes for the decentralized autonomous organization’s (DAO) smart contract to execute.
I feel we need a refresher, and this building period may be a good moment for us focus on the pioneering of decentralized governance in a virtual world, whilst the foundation works on the platform.
Internally, our internal documentation can use a refresher, which many new users (albeit low in volume now) struggle to find, use and utilise to their advantage when attempting to engage with the DAO.
The proposed solution has two fronts:
-> Refining the nature of internal documentation; building a stronger appoach to precedent-setting and value-setting in the DAO
-> Expanding and exposing external documentation; both with good SEO principles, and strategic audience targeting, focused on our strengths.
Internal documentation can be better refined by giving an accurate historical representation of the DAOs past decisions, alongside founding ideals at the heart of the DAO and its bodies, with the aim of clarifying and strengthening precedents and decisions already set.
This documentation, I feel, can be crucial in allowing us to collectively take better decisions. It can give us the information we need to collectively understand the tools at our disposal, and if needs be, give us the shared foundations we would need to cooperatively expand, mold and develop the DAO into a system that better represents our expectations.
-> Documentation must be compiled without bias.
-> Community must be the final arbiter of the compiled documentation.
-> Documentation process must be done in public.
Public documentation should be done on the forums and not on platforms like Google Docs. Documenters must engage with, and if necessary, accept suggestions from community members. Documenters are allowed to have a technical opinion, but not a political one.
-> Should discussions on content lead to long-drawn debates, where technical and political opinions disagree, the debate itself can, and should, be settled by an open community poll. This is the only way we can set a collaborative precedent for the development of our documentation, which represents the DAO’s history, and values.
-> Grant proposal must already have a plan in relation to the organization and presentation of context. In principle, the documenters will have no right to decide context, beyond the technical scope of collecting information, and when necessary, providing a public interpretation.
-> Should gaps in technical documentation be found, in relation to founding practices/precedents/values in the DAO, opportunities for relevant governance decisions may present themselves, which should be addressed before the completion of the documentation.
The target audience of this proposal is individuals with an interest in the policy side of decentralized governance who appreciate the importance (and ultimate necessity) of documentation, best practices, past precedents, and guiding documents in the process of setting policy and fostering good governance.
A large portion of our Documentation budget remains unspent, which is a category very close to my heart. Decentraland’s SDK documentation served as my first exposure to code, and gave me the introduction I needed to software development.
As a student of political science, I wish to be able to say the same thing about our DAO’s documentation, in relation to the field of good governance and political philosophy, and good documentation plays a fundamental role in ensuring that.
At its best, the innovative nature of our DAO (and its palpable relationship to a virtual world) remains one of Decentraland’s strongest features. At its worst, the still-developing, adolescent nature of our DAO can be one of Decentraland’s most prevalent weaknesses; distracting the entity from finding common ground when making decisions that can shape the future of the platform.
This pitch aims to start a conversation about documentation, and what exactly we can and should aim for when assessing this strategic priority. I feel now is a good time to look at the accessibility and presentation of documentation as a key pillar that can allow us to find more common ground and collectively make more cohesive, tangible decisions across the community.