Method of Ambassador recruitment

Historically, we have tried to recruit groups of ambassadors in cohorts with an open call for applications to join the program. While those selected go through a short apprentice phase, after that, it seems like it is not really clear how they can best contribute.

I think that we should change how we recruit new Ambassadors from being cohort/quota driven, to instead recruit for specific roles. The Onboarding team could help mange the process of receiving/vetting ideas/requests for new skills/roles, and then recruit new amassadors to fill those roles.

The request for new Ambassadors could come from anywhere - an existing Ambassador team, from Subspace Labs or Foundation, or from anyone in the community. For example, I may suggest that we recruit two developers as Ambassadors to help create and manage the governance voting program, or we may want to recruit and Ambassador to help manage the Ambassador recruitment program, etc. The Support team may want to recruit a farmer to help with supporting a specific timezone or language. The engagement team may want to recruit someone to specifically help make meetups happen in a geographic area, or get Subspace included in hackathons or other events, etc.

I think this approach would be a better experience for new Ambassadors, giving them a clear way to contribute and an obvious sponsor/mentor to help them come in and start creating value for the network from the beginning.


Some of this has been discussed in the posts here: Ambassador Program Governance - feedback request, specifically:

Sound great, i agree on this idea

How do I apply to become an ambassador? I wish to apply to be the ambassador for the China region. I’ve translated the official documents into Chinese, and have assisted many people in setting up nodes and farms. I aim to establish a larger Chinese community.

1 Like

You need to wait for the next selection of ambassadors. Keep an eye on the project discord for announcements.

If we agree to this approach, make sure you request this when we initiate the change. I also think the request should be different: instead of saying I want to be an ambassador, you would want to request a new ambassador spot to support the Chinese community, and explain why it is good for subspace to have more support and what you think the ambassador that is selected should be doing to grow and support that community.

Being more flexible like this sounds like a great idea - getting closer to scaling with demand. I appreciate we’re checking sentiment here but if we do move forward with this I’d like to understand how this is handled from an admission tracking/incentives perspective to make sure we have something robust in place to accommodate the more granular onboarding ‘tick’.

That makes sense - the way I’m thinking about this is that these requests would just setup the recruiting / advertising what skillsets and how many people we are asking to join the program. Onboarding, official admissions tracking, etc. would all be according to our onboarding process. (Also to be more precisely defined in the bylaws :smile:.)

1 Like

I think this is a great idea. Delegation and a narrow focus on specific tasks will bring us much more benefit.
However, this will require the representative of each group to have closer communication with the team + additional control measures, and so on. It will take some time, but it’s worth it.
As an example, I can give the JoyStream project in which I worked. I’ve been looking at their control system for quite some time and this is about what you’re looking for.

That’s interesting. Is that app an in-house effort or an off-the-shelf item?

I think it will be easier to show if I send a link to their platform

1 Like

I don’t mean to imply that I’m calling for delegation, narrow focus, or specific tasks. I think when recruiting the charter should be broad and open-ended – we want to add people that will contribute for a long time. I suspect a narrow focus or specific tasks make it a top-down / heavy system to administer and limit creativity and expression and contribution of ambassadors. I’d prefer to see very broad, intentional/directional tendencies - e.g. “grow and support the Chinese community” but then leave it up to the Ambassadors to really express what that means and the shape it takes. I am a bit allergic to controls, and prefer agreements and clear expression of intentions - fundamentally a voluntary (vs. controlled) program.


This looks pretty interesting!

For others interested, here is the repo: GitHub - Joystream/pioneer: Governance app for Joystream DAO

Yes, of course, actions should not be mandatory, but only advisory. However, in such conditions, I think that it is advisable to provide some incentives for timely achievement of results

Agree, this looks great. Thanks for bringing it to our attention @Arsi44 :+1:

Hello Jonathan. Thank you for kickstarting the discussion for the reformulation of the onboarding process and sharing your proposal to the wider community here in there Forum

My 2 cents:

“Any member of the community may apply to begin the process of becoming an Ambassador”

Can one apply anytime using a form pinned in Discord or found on our website? Or only within specified quarterly intervals? Past records indicate that a constant form might draw numerous applicants, challenging the onboarding coordination by Governance Guild or Program Manager to manage

“Upon submitting an application, the Applicant may join one or more Ad hoc or Official Teams as an Applicant….If an Applicant is removed from the Program, they may re-apply after a 3 month waiting period. Applicants that have been removed from the Program 3 times may not reapply.”

In your opinion, which party checks the application of a given community member in order to give him the “Applicant” role to access Ambassador channels and participate in Ad Hoc or Official Teams?. Which group do you believe should manage applicant details, register applicants and the Teams they participate in, monitor departures and reapplications, remove inactive applicants after 3 months, and oversee their history of reapplications and removals?

“Contributions of the Applicant should be Submitted to a Peer Review Process”

Regular and Lead Ambassadors review applicants, yes? I worry that an expanded evaluator group might strain the Peer Review process under testing.

“Selection of Apprentice Ambassadors. Applicants that have completed the Onboarding Curriculum and have been ranked above average in at least 2 successive Peer Review Periods can request nomination as an Apprentice. Any nomination having the support of at least two Ambassadors will be granted the role of Apprentice”

If I’ve grasped the process:

  1. An applicant submits information.
  2. Actively contributes for 2 months and receives positive Peer-Review scores.
  3. Requests to become an Apprentice and awaits approval from two Ambassadors. (who manages this approval? Team lead where the applicant worked?)
  4. After obtaining the Apprentice status, works in that capacity for an estimated one or two months (to prove his good standing to become Ambassador). Later, when Guild or Ad hoc
  5. Teams announce Ambassador vacancies, they need the agreement of two Lead Ambassadors (which group oversees this approval?)
  6. Gets chosen as an Ambassador by the endorsing team (agreement achieved through voting? Is the vote overseen by the Guild/Ad hoc team leader?).
  7. Once becoming an Ambassador, they must contribute for six months to qualify for vesting.

Given this sequence, a community member needs to contribute for quite some time before getting selected as Ambassador.

This process does favor top-performing candidates. Yet, considering its duration and multiple evaluation stages, wonder whether it will attract the required number of new Ambassadors.


Hello, I wonder what is the way for the candidate to be approved from 2 Ambassadors with a Peer-Review process?
Will Ambassadors receive an email with candidate achievements in the last 2 months? Will ambassadors have criteria to follow or vote as they see fit?

Gov Guild have discussed simplifying the gate and revised to the below. I think that this could be manage-able because it would rely on a peer-review filter and I’m assuming we can/will automate that process entirely. Then the ambassadors would only have to review those that have already performed above average, gone through the onboarding, and (assuming we keep projects) could just score their mini-project. To be allowed to present your project you would have to be scored above average, and then the onboarding or PA team could just score the presented projects. I believe it should be a much lower overhead process if it works out like that.

Applicants that have completed the Onboarding Curriculum and have been ranked above average in at least 2 successive Peer Review Periods will be automatically promoted to Apprentice after review by the Program Administration Team. A decision of the Program Administration Team to exclude an Applicant can be appealed through the Conflict Resolution Process.

I think that the peer review process coudl score the applicants, and think we could automate granting roles, then use our normal moderation policy to evict people that are disruptive to the proper functioning of the ambassador teams. I think that all of this process would ideally be automated, and/or overseen by a program administration team of ambassadors.

I was seeing this more as a fractal where Applicants score Applicants, Apprentices score Apprentices, and Ambassadors score Ambassadors. Assuming that can be automated, there would be limited strain. If it cannot be, perhaps there is a fractal of the official teams in each circle as well - so applicants could have their own governance, admin, etc. team (but I don’t think that will be necessary.)

It would require a longer period of activity before being granted an Ambassadorship. I think that it would be helpful to weed out people that are not committed, but if the community is concerned it is too long of a process, perhaps we could shorten the cycles, or perhaps have a retro-active vest – e.g. if you make it through the process to Ambasador, perhaps you get credit for at least 2 months of vesting from the Apprentice stage? I’ll raise the time concern with the Gov Guild to see if we have some more creative solutions - I agree that too long of a period will discourage contribution.

I think we will revise this to have it be automated vs. requiring Ambassador review. The peer review process in general is:

  • Person (applicant, apprentice, ambassador) submits each month a report on their contributions to the Program with details that can be validated.
  • 3 randomly selected peers score the contribution
  • The updated scores are published each month after the scoring is complete.

Gov Guild is also going to propose some penalty mechanisms to ensure participation - e.g. participation in governance, including peer reviews, will be required to be in good standing in the program. I think that will eliminate the concerns about lack of participation.

1 Like

I support the demand based recruitment model. While it may cause more work in the short term, I think it will lead to better accountability and effectiveness of ambassador efforts in the long term.

I like this idea on paper. But like Fradique and Jonathan mentioned, automation is ideal and probably necessary to pull it off. We might want to start mapping that project out soon if we haven’t started already.

This is a key point. It certainly could reduce the amount of applicants, but it could also make it easier for members who have been contributing on their own to think, “Well, I’ve been active in here for awhile, I might as well apply and see how far I get.” As opposed to an active member seeing the ongoing requirements to being an ambassador and thinking, “That is so much extra work that I’m not sure if I want to do.

Especially with the idea that we can do:

Which could let committed members contribute in their own way, and allow their fellow applicants, rather than the program, decide if their contributions are worth supporting with a token grant.

Ambassador token grants (in their current state) I think are widely undervalued by the community. Because of this I think we’ll be able to recruit the best candidates in the future, in my opinion that could be best done by:

  • Matching the supply of ambassadors to demand of ambassadors.
  • Placing an importance on commitment from applicants.
  • Using peer review at each stage of the process.
  • Having an ongoing recruitment cycle.
  • Fairly compensating an applicant’s lifecycle of contributions with retro-active vesting.

Fun conversation :grin: :+1: This is the hard work it takes to build something great

1 Like

The recruitment plan is still in progress, but there seems to be no feedback after submitting contact information (e-mail). Could I confirm if can still participate at the moment?

1 Like