The Governance Guild in the ambassador program is at work drafting proposed bylaws to govern the ambassador program itself. While it is still very much in draft, we want to be working in public and to gather early feedback from the community at large.
Currently we have an outline of subjects, some of which have proposed language, and several that are in basic outline. Again, this is very much draft, and has not been reviewed at all by many of the ambassadors, nor by subspace labs, and all of it is subject to change and revision.
As the person taking responsibility for this effort, I wanted to share it with you all and ask for your (constructive ) feedback, particularly to hear about areas of concern.
While it may be easier to provide this in google docs or something that provides direct threaded comments, to provide more transparency I will be posting the current working draft directly on this thread.
The Subspace Ambassador Program (the “Program”) is created and sponsored by Subspace [Labs Inc.] (" Sponsor"). This document governs the principles, roles, responsibilities, membership, and general operations of the Program.
The Program exists to build and support a thriving Subspace Network community. Participants in the Program (”Ambassadors”) act as connectors, educators, promoters, and supporters, bringing wider awareness of the protocol to the public, helping to educate new community members, providing peer-to-peer support, and generally promoting the protocol and supporting and upholding the community values of permission-less, decentralized, and egalitarian.
Although the Ambassador Program is not strictly permission-less nor decentralized (of necessity, based on the scarcity of ambassador grants), it strives to operate internally in as permission-less and decentralized a manner as is reasonable under these conditions.
Article 2. Roles of Ambassadors
Ambassadors are individual persons who have demonstrated an interest in and ability to help accomplish the Mission and Objectives of the Program and who have been selected by the Admission procedures outlined herein.
Rights of Ambassadors
Additional Rights of Lead Ambassadors
Obligations of Ambassadors
Additional Obligations of Lead Ambassadors
Standing. (good or otherwise)
Selection of Ambassadors.
Article 3. Teams
The Program operations shall be conducted by Ambassador Teams, which may be Official Teams established herein or other Ad hoc Teams that are created and dissolved from time to time according to the needs and will of the Ambassadors and through the procedures outlined herein.
- Official Teams
1.a. Official teams are allocated one or more Lead Ambassador roles, which may be filled according to the procedures outlined in [Article 2 Paragraph 5].
1.b. The following official teams are acknowledged:
1.b.i. Support & Engineering Team.
1.b.ii. Education & Content Team.
1.b.iii. Engagement Team.
1.b.iv. Onboarding Team.
1.b.v. Governance Team.
1.b.vi. Program Administration Team.
- Ad hoc Teams
2.a. Any Ambassador may create an Ad hoc Team for any initiative that supports the Program Mission. To be considered An ad hoc Team, the team must… (publish responsibility, confirm it does not infringe on scope of an Official Team, and recruit at least [3?] members.)
2.a.i. Election methods? Consent based?
2.b. Dispute Resolution Team. The Dispute Resolution Team is a permanent Ad hoc Team. The team shall be formed via fractal caucus for periods of six months.
Team Elevation. An Ad hoc Team may be elevated to an Official team by a Supermajority Agreement of the General Assembly. Elevation of an Ad hoc Team signifies the allocation of one or more Lead Ambassador roles assigned to that Team once it is an Official Team.
Dissolution of teams
Management of Assets by Teams.
Great…This is the right track to go.
And I really want to find people who’s passionate about subspace, not a man seeking to complete some kinda to-do-list and then get airdrops lol.
I agree it is really important that we are selecting people that are passionate about the project and dedicated to helping grow the ecosystem.
One of the things I am going to propose for the selection process is that we consider switching from a push to grow ambassadors by quantity or quota, to pulling based on demand. It would be driven by Ambassadors requesting new Ambassadors based on needs and skills. e.g. instead of recruiting a next cohort of X ambassadors, we could have existing teams say - “hey, we need more coverage with support during these hours. Let’s recruit technical ambassadors that can help with farmer support in this timezone.” Or, “We need better docs in this language - let’s recruit ambassadors with these specific language skills.” We could also have community requests - e.g. “This part of the community is feeling left out or think we need more X, Y, Z … can you have ambassadors that focus on that?”
If we shift to a demand/pull based approach, when people join, it’s for a purpose and a clear need - so it will be obvious what they can do to contribute and that is needed by the community.
Great job! I sign every word!
I too feel like this model of recruiting ambassadors would work better.
Hello, interesting idea. I think it could bring benefits for the project
This is a really strong start @jrwashburn! I agree with every word you’ve written here and feel like we’re heading in the right direction to get a sustainable future for the program stood up. The only thing that I see needs tweaking is that the Ambassador Agreements will be with Subspace Foundation (“The Foundation”) rather than Labs/Network.
I recognise the effort you’ve put into producing this first draft of the Governance Bylaws and applaud them. Following the meeting notes in Coda has been an interesting ride and we appreciate the thoughtful discourse being surfaced from all the ambassadors involved in the process.
I will advertise this thread internally to see if the team have any other feedback for you. Sterling work!
Any Ambassador may create an Ad hoc Team for any initiative that supports the Program Mission. To be considered An ad hoc Team, the team must… (publish responsibility, confirm it does not infringe on scope of an Official Team, and recruit at least [3?] members.)
2.a.i. Election methods? Consent based?
What do you think of this idea: form teams to collaborate randomly so that they are not permanent, but shift around?
- Not everyone of ambassadors can choose what they like to do continuously or they may not have a strong adherence for one direction.
- (in a groups) shuffling teams can help reduce conflicts and tensions among participants since they will work with different individuals and develop new relationships.
- This method can be beneficial in educational settings as it enables participants to gain a broader understanding and learn to work with various styles and personalities.
Though currently organised within Guilds, the Program promotes cross-functional collaboration. We notice this in initiatives where several engagement and support Ambassadors contribute to the Content & Guild and vice-versa.
From my understanding, Jonathan’s Ad hoc Team paragraph point at the same notion.
To clarify my understanding, does you first bullet:
a) proposes dismantling Guilds to promote cross-functional mechanics or
b) assumes that current dynamics seem to hinder cross-functional collaboration?
If “b,” please inform us so we can address any blockers and obstacles.
A very detailed proposal, congratulations.
I think there should be a more regular and more detailed system for Ambassador purchases. After all, the ambassador program means supporting the project, and people come here when applying, saying what they can do, what they can contribute. It could be an idea or a social media contribution. The main thing is to support and really do it. But the incentive of each form of support should not be the same. This also means a decrease in performance for ambassadors. Because some contributions are easy to make, while others are really difficult and detailed.
I strongly support the scoring event in the ambassadorship, but I think it should be in two ways. firstly Dec, the scoring we have already done among ourselves, and October, in addition, a committee or people at the top levels of the team should make this situation even more serious by scoring us. In this way, the messengers also understand how serious the situation is. It doesn’t matter if they are new or old.
im sorry it was 3 am I got this letter . Now I’ll come back to discussion
My thinking re: ad hoc teams is that they can dynamically assemble any time, and they may be cross functional, or not. Maybe they will assemble around a specific project - e.g. a hackathon or meetup. Maybe they will splinter off of a guild to provide something more specialized or to operate in a different way.
An “official” team would be the equivalent of a guild - the difference between this and an ad hoc team is that a guild has one or more lead ambassador slots allocated to its operations; whereas an ad hoc team does not have an assigned lead ambassador slot. (It would gain a slot if it gets promoted to an official team. If that naming is preferred by the teams, we can change “official team” to “guild” before we propose adoption.)
Thanks for this thread, Jonathan.
I totally agree with this proposal. A clear goal will allow ambassadors to understand the mission much more quickly and contribute accordingly. At that time, the agreement itself increases productivity, at least because it reminds ambassadors of their obligations
4.f. If Sponsor shall determine the Ambassador is not in Good Standing, Sponsor shall decline the Lead appointment, and instead shall refer the Ambassador to the Conflict Resolution process to consider termination of the Ambassador.
is there is a mistake? as in this case the demotion of Lead Ambassadors should take place instead of termination.
how long Ambassador Agreement lasts btw?
- Subsidiarity. Unless otherwise specified, decisions should be taken by the smallest group of affected Ambassadors or Teams but not by a smaller group than those reasonably anticipated to be affected.
Could you please elaborate why ?
related to your next messages
Personally I agree with this:
“I think leads should a) be subject to the ongoing support of the teams - if a team loses confidence in a lead, that lead should be replaced (demoted to Ambassador) with a new Lead being elected”
But doubts about dynamic vesting, pause/resume ambassador rewarding
to Article 4
Regarding the idea of being able to reset the terms of the current program in favor of a more flexible one, it’s still a little bit early but there is a chance
to Article 5
More like “social credit/reputation as a motivator within the program”