[DAO:b21e741] Process for Establishing Formal Working Groups

by 0x76fb13f00cdbdd5eac8e2664cf14be791af87cb0 (Matimio)

Linked Pre-Proposal

Process for Establishing Formal Working Groups


This proposal outlines the purpose and process for establishing formal DAO Working Groups.


Working Groups allow engaged members of the DCL community to collaborate and ultimately solve for the problems and opportunities identified in Pre-Proposal Polls. This proposal aims to formalize the process of creating community-led working groups following the passage of a “pre-proposal poll” and leading to the submission of a well-thought-out and socialized governance proposal.


The DAO Governance Proposal Stages outlined three distinct stages for identifying community stakeholder interests, socializing solutions, and developing a well-thought-out and implementable governance outcome. In many cases, however, this is not a seamless process, and the building of community consensus and researching impacts and implementation paths require coordination and collaboration across various distributed points of the Decentraland Community.

Governance as voting further has potential to create divisive community and political dynamics. First past the poll voting in particular can promote polarization and zero-sum engagements. Working within the constraints of our established governance process, it is thus extremely important to have a robust and participatory “decision-making process” such that the votes we table are representative to the greatest extent possible.

Working groups - “a group of people who investigate a particular problem and suggest ways of dealing with it (Merriam-Webster, 2022)” - aim to provide opportunities for community members to engage in productive discourse, and complex decision-making. Working groups also provide a forum for the support and engagement of experienced governance facilitators and other community stakeholders to help direct the group toward identifying and articulating a solution or set of potential solutions for broader community consideration.

Formalizing procedures for establishing and conducting working groups will create a transparent, consistent, and efficient model for moving from the identification of an issue toward the best effort at its resolution. This approach will be one way to tackle and escalate different issues toward concrete outcomes, but it will not become the exclusive one, since each community member will still have the possibility to adopt or choose other ways to channel their needs, discussions or concerns.

The proposed Decentraland DAO Working Group process is based on an adaptation of the Delphi Method. The Delphi Method is a research and decision-making methodology used to gather insights and opinions from a variety of experts and stakeholders, and is particularly well suited for distributed and decentralized contexts. The objective of the Delphi method is to generate consensus, and draw from our “collective wisdom” to inform our decision making process.

During active working groups, the DAO Facilitation Squad (or a representative from the working group) will share the status and stages of each active working group as a part of the regular agenda of bi-weekly Town Halls.


Decentraland DAO Working Groups will be carried out in the following steps:

  1. Successful Pre-Proposal Poll - Proposal passes the initial stage of the governance process, signaling sufficient community support for the allocation of DAO/Community time and resources for active facilitation.
  • (1.1) Promote to Draft Proposal - A proposal that has passed the Pre-Proposal stage could be promoted to a Draft Proposal, without the creation of a working group. In other words, a working group is in no way a prerequisite for an initiative to move forward through the governance process. However, if an issue is overly complex or the division of opinions is such that proposal drafters believe broader inputs and insights would be necessary, a formal working group may be established.
  1. Working Group Formation - There are two ways working groups can be formed. First, is through the promotion of a Pre-Proposal Poll to a Working Group by the author or a contributor to the poll. The second, is by a specific Pre-Proposal Poll aiming to establish a working group around a given issue, which may be put forward to the community by any Community Member, including DAO Operator or Committee Members.

  2. Distributed Delphi Method - The Delphi Method is a structured process for obtaining expert/stakeholder opinions on a particular topic, in order to gather input and reach consensus on a particular topic. It typically involves several rounds of questionnaires or surveys, with each round building on the results of the previous round. The Delphi Method is useful for decision-making in a DAO as it allows for collection of diverse perspectives. Decentraland DAO’s Distributed Delphi Method includes the following steps:

  • (3.1) Facilitator Selection - Proposal author/contributors self-select or appoint a representative to facilitate the working group. See Annex A for the full role and responsibilities of the Working Group Facilitator. Unless specifically requested to abstain, a member of the DAO Facilitation Team will support the Working Group Facilitator(s), and may be selected by proposal authors to serve as the Working Group’s primary facilitator. If the designated Working Group Facilitator quits at any stage, a DAO Facilitator or a DAO Committee Member will fulfill the role and decide with involved community members if the working group should remain active.

  • (3.2) Call for Working Group Participants - A general call for Working Group participants will be issued via Discord, DCL DAO Twitter, and pathways for joining will be established, likely including integration with the Governance dApp from the Pre-Proposal Poll.

  • (3.3) Pose question or problem to the Working Group - The Working Group Facilitator will design and distribute the question(s) / problem to the group, for participants to respond to. This can be in the form of a single question, questionnaire, or survey.

  • (3.4) Solutioning - Participants submit their proposed solutions/responses in the form of written comments, open-ended questions, or other form as specified in the questionnaire/survey.

  • (3.5) Analysis and Reporting - The proposed solutions/responses are analyzed, grouped into categories and/or themes, summarized and shared by the working group Facilitator(s).

(Continued in Conclusion Section Below)


  • (3.6) Solutioning (II) - A second round of clarifying questions is posed by the Working Group Facilitator. Members of the Working Group then have the opportunity to revise and tailor their responses, based on the summary of themes and categories, and adapted questions, repeating the process until a consensus is reached or a set of multiple potential pathways forward is developed - as determined by the Working Group Facilitator. In the interest of time, this process should not be repeated more than four times.
  1. Working Group Synopsis Report & Round Table Discussion - The DAO Facilitation Team will lead, or support the drafting of a Working Group Synopsis Report, detailing outcomes of the Working Group. This report will serve as a record of the proceedings, and as a point of reference for future discussions and drafting of proposals around the issue. The report will be publicly shared and discussed in a Round Table format, including Working Group Facilitators and Participants.

  2. Draft Proposal - A proposal that has passed the Pre-Proposal Stage and workshopped via the Working Group, may be published as a Draft Proposal by the original proposals Authors or Contributors. Once again, a working group is not a prerequisite for a Draft Proposal.

  • (5.1) Proposal Feedback & Review - Proposal authors may share the Draft Proposal for review and feedback with the wider community in general, and Working Group Participants in particular, to ensure it is representative of Working Group outputs.
  1. Impact & Implementation Pathways - The final stage of a the Governance process calls for a detailed assessment of the proposal’s impact and description of implementation pathways. At this stage, it is possible that impacts and implementation pathways have already been determined through the previous Delphi Method, have been devised by authors of the proposal, or require further workshopping to be determined. In case of the latter, a the Delphi process can be reiterated, using prompts focusing on proposal impacts and implementation pathways. Alternatively, the Working Group may continue through asynchronous, synchronous discussions to support more detailed understandings of impacts and implementation pathways.

  2. Binding Governance Proposal - The goal of a working group is not necessarily to produce a binding governance proposal. The aim is to facilitate a process that builds consensus, rather than divisive, zero-sum voting. That said, when faced with a complex or divisive issue, a Working Group can assist with development of a well-thought out and implementable Binding Governance Proposal, where the impacts are clearly understood and articulated, and implementation pathways established prior to its passage.

  • (7.1) Non-Binding & Automated/Augmented - All Working Group procedures and outputs are non-binding. When possible, the process should be automated and integrated into the existing governance dApp, such that there is a user journey for establishing and carrying out the process. These pathways will be described in detail in the Binding Governance Proposal - if this proposal passes the Draft Proposal stage.

Conclusion: Working Groups aim to expand our governance from a process of voting to one of decision-making. The formalization of this process with clear pathways for the collection and synthesis of information will assist us in devising well thought out and implementable governance policies.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Annex A: Role of The Working Group Facilitator

  1. Designing and distributing questionnaires or surveys: The facilitator is responsible for creating the questions or problems that will be posed to the group, and for distributing the questionnaires or surveys to the participants.
  2. Managing the data: The facilitator is responsible for collecting and compiling the responses from the participants, and for creating and sharing the summary statistics of the responses. Ensuring transparency of data is essential, and this will be approached in more detail if advanced to the Binding Governance Proposal stage.
  3. Communicating with the participants: The facilitator is responsible for keeping the participants informed of the progress of the study, and for answering any questions or concerns they may have.
  4. Facilitating the discussion: The facilitator is responsible for leading the group through the process of discussing the responses, and forming a second round of questions for solutioning.
  5. Keeping records: The facilitator should keep records of the process, the results, and the decisions made, so that it can be used for future reference.
  6. Facilitating the decision-making process: The facilitator should help the group to reach a conclusion based on the responses and help the group to draft implementable and well-formed governance proposals.
  7. Additionally, a facilitator should be able to keep the process moving forward and ensure that all voices are heard, and that the process progresses in a timely manner.

@Matimio I just want to make sure I understand correctly. Are we enacting the working groups findings in a Binding Governance Proposal? Or are they going through the entire 3-step procedure of the governance like pre-poll, draft, final proposal?

For instance, it seems right here that while these working groups may NOT have the intention of creating Binding Governance Proposals, but it could still turn into a binding governance proposal.

If I understand this correctly, this seems like it could be used as a new loophole to avoid the first 2 steps of the proposal stages [DAO: QmSjXh1] DAO Governance Proposal Stages by creating a working group then proposing their findings as a Binding Governance Final Proposal. Can you explain this to make sure I am understanding this properly? As of now, I am interpreting this as a way for the DAO Facilitation Squad to gain more power from the working groups to be able to bypass the 3-step DAO process enacted by you.

As of now this is how it looks to me: Matimio created the idea of have governance proposals in 3 stages. Matimio will be in charge of facilitating these working groups, along with his DAO Facilitator Squad. These working groups can be created by the first 2 proposals (which are just for creation of working groups). Then the final binding governance proposal can be to enact the findings of the working group. This seems like a way to bypass the DAO due process that Matimio enacted so he has the ability to create working groups that could potentially (without “intention”) create final governance. So it looks like he is creating a new way for governance to be enacted 1. Easily through his DAO Facilitator Squad, or 2. a 3-step governance process.
I hope you can clarify this and tell me I am wrong.

My other question is where will these working groups take place? What kind of procedures will their be for mediation of discussion?

1 Like

Hi @Tudamoon!

I think that most of your questions are already answered within the proposal, but in order to clarify, Working Groups are not under any circumstances a way to skip the 3-staged governance procedure. The establishing of a working group will help to go through the different stages while bringing a semi-structured way for building consensus with different rounds of Q&A.

The main outcome of a working group may be a proposal, but also could be a summary document with main insights of the discussion.

The rest of your argument doesn’t make too much sense to me, because it’s expressly detailed in the ‘3.1 Facilitator Selection’ section that the author of the proposal is the one that can self-select or appoint a representative to fulfill the facilitator role for that specific working group. Actually, the author also has the prerogative to request the DAO Facilitation Squad to abstain to give support.

We’re still working with the Governance Squad on defining the place where the working groups should be held and also we want to take community feedback on this proposal to move forward. So far, the approach that we’ve been discussing is that we should work on a mix with Discord and a page within the Governance dApp.

I quick-drafted a flow for a better understanding:

Let me know if you have any other queries!


Thank you for clarifying. I would like to point out, I was not “arguing” I was sharing my interpretation of how I saw this as I read it.

Number 7 is very confusing because if you refer to the 3 stages of Governance proposals, that is what the third stage official title is called.

I did see that it may also not be the solely the DAO Facilitation Squad proposing working groups, however, many who are not as involved may never know that this is another way to initiate discussions. Therefore, I was concerned that the only people who would know about this would be those who keep very close attention to the DAO and those who hold a lot of power.

This was very confusing to me also because once again he refers to stage 3.

However this does not apply if they still have to go through all 3 governance proposal stages after the working group. Therefore my concerns may be alleviated. The chart you provided was very helpful.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback!

We can re-work the writing for sure.

PS: when I said ‘argument’ I meant ‘reasoning’.

1 Like

Hey Tuda. The way I understand it is that the working group is actually a middle step between steps 1 and 2 of the proposal process.

  1. Pre-proposal poll

(Here we would form the working group that will discuss and brainstorm and meet and churn out the issue before going on to the next step. If there’s consensus or ideas then we can draft a proposal)

  1. Draft proposal

(If this passes, the working group can then investigate the impact and implementation pathways, churn out any details based on community feedback and then go in to a binding proposal… but we may never get past this stage… as has happened with the VP inequity issue… so then we can write a report that will remain for us to 1. Pick up the issue again at a later time or 2. Have knowledge of how the issue was worked out and what the outcome was.)

  1. Binding proposal

(By this stage it should be easy. If there was no consensus we wouldnt be here… or maybe we would… and it still doesn’t pass… or it does… the point is we can work it out as a community, give everyone a voice in easily digestible, easy to follow discussions, and hopefully build concensus one way or the other… before we get to the binding proposal stage)

I think it makes steps 1 and 2 more effective and will filter out issues that may not be ready for a binding proposal step, thus increasing the quality of binding proposals. It will also give DAO members an opportunity to engage with the issues that affect them most… like for me… anything to do with giving education a seat at the table next to games and parties would be my home. wink wink


Im just saying,
an alternative to this procedure is :

  1. Anyone who thinks that a topic is important enough for group discussion can goto DAO discord, and say “@matimio, can you please create a discord channel for the discussion of …”
  2. Matimio can either create the group or not. If the group is not created, the community members can create their own groups outside of the official dao discord.
  3. If a group is created, they can discuss and anytime they feel they have a potential solution, they can simply post the next step proposal for it (pre/draft/governance). If they feel they can’t draft a proposal, they can dm facilitation squad or any other dao member for help.

This is like 10 times simpler, and although it can theoretically become difficult if DAO gets too populated and chaotic, It seems to be more than sufficient for the time being.

I honestly don’t see why I need to read complication procedure (with its own annexure :sob:) to get a group discussion going.

Am I completely missing some issue this is trying to tackle here? :thinking:

Yes, but I think you are misinterpreting it also.

This is the way.

If i understand it correctly, basically the pre-proposal poll and rough draft happen in the working group until a well thought out proposal is designed and then submitted as the flnal process and put to vote. Couldn’t this all be avoided by just initially having a deep conversation on a proposal before submitting. Getting feedback (which is difficult to do as not many participate until it’s submitted for pre-proposal) from others’ ideas and knowledge can streamline the process. My concern is that this would divert the conversations away from where most are used to finding them (proposal discussion channels etc) and many may miss out. I also think that when the final proposal is put to vote there should be a “these are the reasons for” and “these are the reason found against” the topic along with the names of those who provided those reasons so that people can determine their trust level based on who provided information forming the proposal. We should always do our own research but if you know a person has an expertise in a field or know they typically do plenty of research on a matter than your trust level may be higher and possibly save people some time when doing that research as well.

I’ve stated this numerous times that a thorough conversation about a proposal would produce a much better written proposal and could give a person an idea of whether it has a great or bad chance of passing. I’ve also stated before there needs to be a way to expedite the process should an urgent issue ever come up and this could be that solution. Until the line of communicating a working group to people is determined I have to vote Not enough details but hope to be able to vote yes.

I disagree on this point however:

  1. Matimio can either create the group or not. If the group is not created, the community members can create their own groups outside of the official dao discord.

I remember a time in the past where I attended local county government meetings. They would have working groups that would hire experts on the subject matter to share the positives and negatives of their research about the subject matter. Then they would come back with a recommendation from their expert point of view while sharing the positives and negatives of the results they would find.

This would be about fact and data gathering, rather than discussion. The consensus would be based on the information gathered. Then the DAO would be the final decision maker. This ideally should be more professional experts discussing something, however I also think these should be 3rd party participants so that unbiased data can be shared to the DAO. I also think it should be paid if it is the case.

1 Like

Good question as that is there are channels already for people to discuss their proposals before hand to get a consensus on how it may be received when voted on and for people to provide their feedback as well. However, not many participate as it is. It seems a bit redundant unless something official is needed to gain more participation, IDK.

The entire 3 stage process. Passing the Pre-Proposal poll, however, is the pre-requisite for establishing a working group. This is just a parallel mechanism for collective solutioning of a problem. There working groups themselves have absolutely no power, or connection to the governance process, other than that they will be able to be enacted by authors/contributors of a pre-proposal poll, and have a semi-automated process through which community members can essentially ask a question and seek answers from those who are interested in providing insights to an issue.

This is 100% inaccurate, and I really hope we can come to a point where you move beyond this narrative surrounding my attempts to concentrate power. When we implemented the 3 stage process, we had no way of enacting “binding” governance outside of a few specific items, and we were voting on 7 day non binding polls about the most important issues to our ecosystem, flip flopping weekly, sending us into a tailspin of division, not disimilar to where we are now with our community dynamics, although this time for different reasons. But PLEASE stop framing me as your scapegoat and PLEASE try to see the positive intentionality behind what I do before searching for some nefarious intent.

We are coordinating with the dApp team to create an automated/augmented process. The working groups will most likely tike place in some type of open source semi-integrated dApp, that is a workspace for the process, and updates will be posted into discord and forums. This will be articulated and developed in the final stage of the proposal if it passes. However the framework could look something like the EIP UI/UX (All | Ethereum Improvement Proposals) where we have all active and past working groups, and then each working group is also a “living” workspace designed for the purpose. Overall, everything we plan to attach to this process will in some intuitive way be integratabtle into our current processes (dApp, discord, forums), and explicated in the Binding Governance Proposal (if we get to that stage with this).

In a standard Delphi Method, it is actually the facilitators and community that do poll experts and they are the ones that provide the responses. However, because we are decentralized, we opted to have the process be open to community members that view themselves as experts, and those that are stakeholders as well. I personally do think the process could be more robust if we had an additional stage in which the community selected the “experts/stakeholders” that would be the ones answering the questions, but shyed away from this because of concerns that folks would see this is over centralizing the process and exclusionary. I think the process would be more efficient if we selected, say 5 experts / informed stakeholders to provide their insights, rather than have it be a completely open call for solutions, however, both can be viable and the latter mitigates potential concerns surrounding gatekeeping.

@Existential14 the plan is to have it integratabtle into the dApp and be a very rapid spin up process. And ultimately something that is light weight, and easy to facilitate for anyone that creates a pre-proposal poll that passes.

  1. Community Member X submits a pre-proposal poll and it passes.
  2. The author of the poll clicks a button, that establishes the working group, and issues a call for participants.
  3. The author selects a facilitator, either themself, another member of the community, or it can be assigned to a DAO Facilitator.
  4. The selected facilitator now is prompted with posing a direct line of questions or prompts to potential working group participants in a brief survey form.
  5. Experts and/or Stakeholders that see the call which will be automated and pushed to the relevant outlets in discord and twitter and the forum, etc. Can click participate and be brought directly to the prompt, which will aggregate resonses into the working groups workspace…
  6. The main point of individual/focus input is in the analysis of responses, their summation, and forming of a second round of clarifying questions. Although, with emerging AI tools at our disposal, we could likely very much automate this process and only use a human to review it, rather than to carry it out!

All of this will be captured in a UI/UX that directs the process.

That really is the intention of it.

Back to this point here, that I approached briefly above: I do agree with this being a preferential pathway. However, it has potential to slow down the process and lead to issues surrounding who/what qualifies as an “expert” and how they are selected. I would be happy, however, to draft out an alternative pathway that emphasizes incorporation of experts into the process to demonstrate how a version of a working group using experts as a point of reference in the process could look like.

ANYWAY: Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion.


I misunderstood. I was simply expressing how I saw it at that time. It seems to me that my concerns are alleviated. There is no narrative. Simply I have seen power moves in my past through politics and I am ensuring nothing is overlooked. I think there is something here to discuss and I try to stick to upholding principles. If I didn’t share my perspective, it would have became a dispute which was not my intention. I am here to uphold decentralization which for all who enjoys freedom will always have a duty to question proposed policies.

As of now, my only concerns are where the working groups will take place. If they are “third party” then I think it is fair to do them where ever. As for the “experts,” I think it would have to be from people who can prove their credentials for the job to give an expert opinion.

As an example, a doctor of Medicine should be sufficient to give an expert opinion on Medical relating to their specialization. But maybe even have several doctors of medicine with the same specialization participate in this working group around the world. Medicine is practiced different everywhere. I think the consensus of the working groups should also include data from both sides with a recommendation for a course of action. This could be helpful.

There are already a few squads in place for overseeing props…we do not need more more more, so I vote NO NO NO. Will this (or any squads previously in place) address the main concern of VP Imbalance? I don’t think so… alas, with all the currents squads in place, let’s not muddle the situation any further.

1 Like

I’m still seeing a lot of concern with the reasoning that “working groups already exist and they’re working well”. My question is: why shouldn’t we try to improve them by tackling their main weaknesses?

Right now, this dynamic is pretty informal, so the process is technically discretionary. As Matimio pointed out a couple of times, “formalizing” a process simply outlines it and describes what is/will be happening.

Why is this necessary? Because this particular process brings an ordered but still decentralized and transparent approach to empower every member of this community, by giving the possibility of workshopping solutions without the need to rely on DAO Committee Members and the Squads.

I also think that we’re kinda missing the point that the setting up of working groups and the creation of specific working spaces within the Governance dApp are not only meant to be a way to go through the proposal stages, but also to build consensus, consolidate, and summarize discussions by keeping working papers and documentation in a place visible and available for everyone.

When the discussions are ongoing, there will be a concrete place to centralize all information and documentation -like the Grants page in the dApp-, and if an issue comes out and was already discussed, everyone will be able to revisit these working spaces where records and background information will be available.

This group dynamic tends to decentralize and brings a bottom-up policy building approach, with the figure of the ‘facilitator’ more as a default collaborator, and not as a core or central figure in the process or with any kind of intrinsic power. By inviting different members of the community to get involved, empowering and promoting them to reach different outcomes and build proposals, a formal process will give everyone a concrete possibility and a transparent pathway to propose the establishing of specific issue working groups.

We can think this process as a set of tools, and these tools will bring a more clearer and easier way to keep track and follow up with the different axes of specific issues, giving to the whole community and the working group facilitator -whoever is fulfilling that position- a holistic view, and the setting of some standard objectives, outputs and outcomes of these working groups.


Redundant. Voting NO

This isn’t a squad it’s a process / governance operation. One that could in itself help progress toward resolving the VP issue.

This does not require any more manpower. It does not create any additional committees. It is a socio-technical process for collective decision-making and solutioning that will be semi-automated so a proposal that passes the pre-proposal stage has a pathway to capture the best insights from the community and other expert stakeholders toward developing a solution for the problem that a proposal posses.

Process for Establishing Formal Working Groups

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 98% 2,042,996 VP (238 votes)
  • No 2% 50,891 VP (11 votes)