►
Description
Description
GovComms Engagement Lead @thomas.flitter leads a discussion on Core Unit and Facilitator Offboarding.
MakerDAO recently had its first experience off-boarding a Core Unit, MKT-001. As a result, the need for developing and strengthening the governance process around CU offboardings has become apparent. This call and its associated resources aims to summarize and frame the issue, some of its key components, potential solutions, and more. In addition, we ask call attendees to bring your own thoughts about what you’d like to see in future offboarding policies.
Agenda
What events led to this discussion?
What are the offboarding concerns at MakerDAO?
What should we implement to improve offboarding at MakerDAO?
Open Discussion and attendee questions
Wrap up and Takeaways
Call Notes
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MqNfh9zaHUZSby26p2DLNI-yEeBiCV30ipfkKZNWws0/edit?pli=1#
Disclaimer
This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of people involved, and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and the use of finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only , and do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial or other advisory services.
A
B
Well
good
day,
everyone
welcome
to
the
issue.
Discussion
call
number
four.
This
is
on
our
topic
today,
facilitator
and
core
unit
off
boarding.
My
name
is
thomas
flitter
engagement
lead
for
governors
communications.
We've
got
a
lot
of
good
folks
here
joining
us
today,
and
I
want
to
really
start
off
by
welcoming
everyone.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
here.
This
is
a
very
important
topic.
B
I
hope
everyone
is
able
to
see
the
slides
and,
if
there's
anything
else
david,
would
you
like
to
add
anything
to
the
intro
here
this
morning
or
today,
yeah
no
more
all
right
looks
like
we
have
member
for
you
several
core
unit
members.
We've
got
some
delegates
here.
Thank
you
for
again
joining
us
today.
B
B
That
really
is
where,
where
we
want
to
do
today,
is
realizing
that,
yes,
we
have
an
amen,
that's
out
there,
we'll
take
a
look
at
that,
but
also
really
what
are
your
thoughts?
What
are
your
ideas
that
we
can
bring
to
the
table
to
really
at
the
end,
improve
this
process?
Make
it
a
better
experience
and
to
grow
maker
policies
and
make
them
stronger,
but
also,
what's
important,
too,
is
just
as
a
friendly
reminder.
This
is
an
open
discussion.
B
You
know
we
had
three
events
that
we're
looking
at
in
particular,
and
what
I
think
is
important
to
understand
is
that
we
have
involuntary
and
voluntary
facilitator
off-boarding,
as
well
as
a
core
unit
off-boarding
and
the
core
unit.
Off-Boarding
event
really
opened
our
eyes.
I
believe,
to
you
know,
opportunities
that
we
can
go
about
looking
at
what
our
policies
are
and
see
how
we
can
improve
those
policies
for
the
next
off-boarding
event,
and
so
the
three
events
that
we're
just
going
to
highlight.
Briefly,
I
think
everybody
here
is
familiar
with
them.
B
Real
world
finance.
That
was
an
involuntary
facilitator
opponent,
which
actually
ended
up
being
a
voluntary
off-boarding
event
because
of
the
discussion
between
roon
and
seb,
and
you
know
that
ended
up
being
where
we
found
a
common
ground,
I
believe
with
bringing
will
on
as
a
facilitator,
but
it
really
started
with
roon
and
said,
and
you
know
that
was
something
that
actually
got
worked
out,
but
again
it
wasn't
the
optimal
off-boarding.
You
know,
but
we'll
talk
a
little
more
in
depth
about
that.
B
During
our
examples,
the
second
one
was
ducks,
and
this
was
really
a
voluntary
facilitator
off
40..
This
is
where
you
had
philip
was
like.
You
know,
I'm
wanting
to
voluntarily
off
board,
and
here
is
my
succession
plan,
and
so
that
event
really
went.
I
guess
as
smooth
as
possible,
and
it
was.
It
was
one
of
those
that
didn't
really
open
up
a
lot
of
public
scrutiny,
a
lot
of
back
and
forth,
but
that
that
process
went
up
pretty
well.
B
There
was
a
lot
of
public
scrutiny,
a
lot
of
form
back
and
forth,
and
we
believe
that
there
could
be
some
opportunities
where
we
could
do
a
little
bit
better
job
in
the
next
time
that
this
event
happens,
and
so
what
we
want
to
dig
into
is
looking
at.
Really,
you
know
what
what
are
some
of
the
off-boarding
policies.
B
Okay,
so
our
current
off-boarding
policies-
these
are
the
ones
that
are
being
looked
at
in
the
amendment,
the
off-boarding
of
facilitator,
the
fallback
decision
process,
also
adding
modifying
a
core
unit
budget
and
also
removing
the
core
unit.
Those
are
the
four
sections
in
the
amendment
that
we're
taking
a
look
at
and
proposing
some
new
language
in
each
of
those
what's
interesting
about
each
of
those
is
that
they
are,
they
are
in
place,
but
there
are
questions
about
each
of
those
policies
and
each
of
those
policies
is
really
am.
B
I
sort
of
want
to
say
that
it's
an
it's
our
opinion.
It's
not
really
suggestion
it's
opinion
or
thoughts
from
the
community
feedback.
You
know
it's
open-ended
questions
about.
You
know
what
qualified
for
and
off-boarding
some
of
the
processes
that
we
go
through
and
I
think
that's
what
we're
really
our
goal
is-
is
to
tighten
up
these
tighten
up
these
policies
to
make
a
better
experience
with
maker.
A
lot
of
questions
were
really
raised
from
the
community,
and
I
wanted
to
list
those
here.
B
You
know
what
are
the
concerns?
What
what
are
we
listening
to
when
we
do
these
issue
discussion?
Calls
we
listen
to
the
forum,
we
listen
to.
We
look
at
the
votes.
Artem
pulls
a
lot
of
stuff
together
for
us
to
examine
and
say
this
issue
is
something
that
seems
to
be.
You
know
a
big
concern
for
us.
How
do
we
address
it
and
how
do
we
open
this
up
so
that
we
can
get
input
from
our
community?
B
You
know
our
delegates,
our
core
units
and
say
all
right
here
are
the
questions
that
we've
come
up
with.
You
know
for
off-boarding
one
is,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
question
has
been
really
hammered
out,
but
is
you
know
who
can
off
court?
You
know
you
know.
I
know
that
some
of
the
examples
that
we
have
in
particular,
were
you
know
outside
core
units
outside
delegates.
They
were,
you
know,
maybe
someone's
a
maker
holder.
Does
that
qualify
for
someone
who
can
off
board
you
know.
B
Is
it
somebody,
that's
a
community
member
is
that,
okay
with
us
that
they
can
come
in
and
say
this
person
is
not
really
doing
a
good
job.
Here's.
Why
and
that
kind
of
leads
us
into
the
second
question:
what
qualifies
for
an
off
board?
The
current
policies
really
with
the
facilitator,
you
know
off-boarding,
is
saying
all
right.
Why
do
you
believe
that
this
facilitator
should
be
off-board
and
it's
open-ended
and
that's
what
we
want
to
say
also.
Is
that
once
that
happens,
what
about
the
handling
of
the
off-board
process?
B
Also
the
budget
removal
process.
You
know
when
we
look
at
the
core
unit
being
removed.
You
know
it's
not
just
the
facilitator,
you
know
you're
you're
also,
you
know
you're
also
looking
at
it
saying.
Well,
you
know
we
want
to
off.
We
want
to
bring
the
vote
to
off
board,
you
know
or
bring
the
budget
offline,
and
so
those
things
have
to
be
in
combination
for
a
core
unit.
Interesting
about
the
core
unit
off
boarding
was
that
it
was
a
joint
vote.
It
was
a
vote
for
the
facilitator
and
the
budget.
B
You
know
that
process.
You
know
the
review
process
wasn't
legitimate.
Did
we
do
an
ample
job
in
making
sure
that
you
know
there
was
a
succession
plan
that
all
these
things
fit
into
place
and
also
one
question
I
don't
know
if
we've
really
been
raised
is
that
what
about
the
team
members?
You
know
when
we
ask
about
an
off-boarding
facilitator?
B
What
does
that
impact
other
core
units?
You
know
it's
looking
at?
Maybe
there
is
a
member
on
that
team.
That
has
you
know,
have
we
have
we
vetted
all
the
team
members?
Are
we
looking
at?
You
know
a
contributor
that
may
be
doing
a
really
good
job,
and
so
I
think
when
we
line
that
up
it's,
maybe
the
facilitator
isn't
doing
a
good
job.
But
what
about
the
other
team
members
and
the
assets
that
they
bring?
How
do
we,
you
know,
talk
to
them
and
discuss
with
them?
B
One
of
the
things
that
really
struck
me
too,
especially
with
the
most
recent
event,
was
that
the
defiant
came
to
us
and
said-
and
I
know
david
chimed
in
and
several
others
did
chime
in
paper
and
and
delegates
and
all
that
they
wrote
an
article
about
you
know,
is
this
going
to
be
tougher?
Is
tougher
governance
coming
right,
and
so
I
want
to
pose
this
question
and
I'm
just
leading
off
and
to
think
about
in
the
future.
B
B
And
I
think
one
of
those
things
is
that
you
know
talking
about
our
policies
and
did
we
learn
from
that?
Did
we
learn
from
the
off-boarding
and
something
I
was
as
a
suggestion
that
no
problem
was
brought
up
in
a
forum
discussion?
Is
that
what
about
excuse
me?
What
about
making
it
a
better?
You
know
process.
Do
we
do
exit
interviews
or
feedback,
or
you
know
we're
bringing
all
the
talent
group
that's
going
to
really
be
put
on?
B
You
know
put
on
a
situation
where
they're
they're
going
to
come
in
and
say:
how
do
we
handle
learning
about
our
off-boarding
process?
You
know
it.
May
not.
It
may
be
good,
maybe
not
good,
but
one
of
the
things
I
thought
that
we
could
talk
about
is
how
do
we
make
that
experience
better?
How
do
we?
How
do
we
make
off-boarding
experience
better
by
listening?
B
So
those
are
really
the
some
of
the
concerns
that
we've
listened
to.
We've
heard
we've
read,
and
I
hope
that
I
wanted
to
see
if
anybody
had
anything
else
that
maybe
they
want
to
add
to
this,
but
I
hope
that
they
seem
like
some
concerns
that
you've
probably
read
about
or
heard
about,
but
I
wanted
to
get
folks
thoughts
on
the
current
off-boarding
concerns
that
we
have
out
there
right
now.
B
C
It's
hard
to
know
how
people
are
going
to
react
when
their
livelihood
is
threatened,
and
you
know
between
the
core
units.
We
do
control
a
lot
of
really
important
infrastructure.
So
I
think
for
me,
like
one
one
major
milestone
for
for
a
good
offboarding
process,
we'll
be
having
something
having
something
in
place
that
that
really
ensures
that
that
people
are
incentivized
to
to
cut
ties.
B
That's
great
yeah
that
that
was
like
one
of
the
scenarios
I
thought
about
is
well,
I'm
a
team
member.
You
know
how
would
I
feel
if
you
know
I'm
just
going
to
use
that
if
david
was
offboarded
right
and
what
about
arthur
and
myself
and
all
the
contributors,
you
know
what
about
that.
Experience
that
you
know
what
effects
does
that
core
unit
being
off-boarded
have
on
others?
You
know
we've
had
to
work
on
some
real,
some
logistics,
you
know
and
we,
while
we've
ironed
them
out.
B
It
was
a
little
bit
of
a
challenge
for
us
for
our
group,
and
that
was
something
that
you
know
we
had.
We
had
to
find
out,
consider
work
on
internally
and
it
really
stretched
us
a
little
bit
from
govcoms.
You
know,
because
of
certain
things
that
we
had
to
get
cleared
up
and
david,
you
know,
had
to
work
very
diligently
to
ensure
that
those
things
were
taken
care
of
so.
B
B
You
know,
we've
got
an
amendment,
that's
out
there.
We've
got
the
link
to
that
and
it's
still
in
our
wait
a
minute.
I
think
it's
it's
out
there
for
comment.
I
believe-
and
you
know
folks
still
and
have
made
comments
about.
You
know
what
what's
needed,
for
you
know
the
latest
core
unit
off-boarding
and
then,
of
course,
today's
issue
discussion
call.
B
So
the
first
question
I
want
to
just
put
out
there
is:
should
there
be
limitations
on
who
can
submit
an
off-boarding
proposal?
I
understand
the
nature
of
our
business.
Is
not
a
traditional
company
where
it's
you
have.
You
know
a
boss
saying
my
my
subordinate
is
not
doing
a
good
job
he's
not
doing
his
work,
you
know,
but
the
question
there
is,
you
know:
should
there
be
limitations?
Should
it
be-
and
this
may
be
just
a
real
quick
answer,
but
is
it
just
you
know
employees
of
of
the
maker
dow?
B
D
D
Are
they
not
a
maker
holder?
Are
they
some
other
stakeholder
group
that
we
don't
necessarily
know
like?
I
don't
I
don't
think.
That's
super
important,
I
think,
what's
important
is
the
substance
of
the
proposal
rather
than
who's
proposing
it,
and
I
think
that
that's
a
value
that
a
lot
of
people
in
the
making
community
share.
C
Yeah
I'd
second,
that
just
from
like
a
risk
of
the
on
the
governance
side
right,
if
we,
the
more
you
like
gatekeep
proposals,
the
further
you
get
away
from
debating
the
the
merit
of
it
right,
you
know
it's
like
it
becomes
more
social
capital
who's
allowed
to
make
proposals
and
whose
proposals
generally
go
through,
whereas
when
anyone
is
allowed
to
make
a
proposal,
you
know
it
really.
Just
is
about
all
right
what
is
proposing
and
why.
B
Yeah,
I
think
the
the
catalyst
for
this
was.
You
know
if
an
individual
that
has
had
no
experience
with
you
know,
maker
dow
has
come
in
and
become
a
forum
member
and
then
he
just
puts
the
signal
request
out,
or
you
know
it's
it'll
lead
into
a
question
I
have
here
in
a
minute
which
is
kind
of
oversight
of
the
proposal.
Is,
it
makes
sense,
you
know,
is
it
you
know
someone
who
we
research
a
little
bit?
B
D
D
We
have
mip
editors
who
come
and
kind
of,
say
hey
like
you're
following
or
you're,
not
following
the
template
correctly
and
then
number
two
like
you're
following
or
not
following
the
component
correctly.
So,
although
you
may
have
followed
the
template,
you
didn't
actually
list
like
the
things
that
are
required
in
the
component
for
you
to
list.
So
there's
like
a
quality
check
that
has
to
happen
on
the
mip.
Editor
side
is
my
opinion.
I
don't
know
if
that's
actually
a
part
of
the
process
and
then
the
other
piece
is.
D
You
know
the
whoever
the
proposal
is
about
actually
like
giving
a
rebuttal
on
from
their
own
voice
about
the
proposal,
I
think,
is
very,
very
important
like
how
facilitators
handle
those
rebuttals
is,
is
pretty
key
and-
and
you
know
not,
everybody
is
obviously
like
super
trained
in
public
communications.
But
if
you're
a
facilitator,
you-
probably
you
probably
should
know
how
to
how
to
rebuttal
to
you
know
what
store
I'm
looking
for
rebuttal
to
these
kinds
of
proposals,
but
yeah,
I
see
long
houses
hand
up,
go
for
it.
C
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
you
said
a
lot
about
all
those.
I
was
going
to
say
just
that.
If
we
want
to
ensure
some
level
of
quality
for
proposals,
then
we
should
create
rules
around
what
the
proposal
should
look
like
what
the
template
should
be,
what
it
needs
to
include
versus
creating
rules
over
who
is
allowed
to
do
it
right.
The
idea
should
be
that
anyone
can
do
it,
but
they
need
to
follow
or
do
it
in
the
right
way
right.
C
C
B
All
right
so
yeah
that
that
was
you
know.
I
think
that
leads
into
a
couple
of
additional
questions
that
we
have
along
the
way
here,
and
one
of
the
keys,
I
think
is,
is
going
into
what
qualifies
for
off-boarding.
I
think
we're
doing
a
pretty
good
job
here
with
the
amendment,
but
the
current
policy
was
really
just
an
open-ended
question.
B
If
I'm
not
mistaken
it's,
why
do
you
want
to
do
this
and
we
don't
really
not
really
have
a
lot
of
guidance
on
saying
you
know
what
are
the
qualifiers
for
that?
I
think
the
new
amendment
it
does
a
pretty
good
job
so
far
in
the
comments
and
asking
about
what
are
the
deliverables?
What
are
the
implicit
deliverables?
B
Is
there
a
possible
remedy
for
this,
but
I
think
one
of
the
questions
I
wanted
to
ask
is:
if
we're
proposing
you
know,
if
we're
going
from
an
open-ended
to
a
more
succinct
line
of
questions.
What
does
that
require?
You
know
for
the
core
unit.
If,
in
those
explicit
deliberates
it
says
in
your
mandate,
you
will
you
will
do
x,
y
and
z?
Have
you
held
to
that?
You
know
all
the
coordinates
prepared
for
the
amendment.
B
You
know
if,
and
I
just
went
out
to-
I
just
went
out
and
looked
at
the
mip
for
mandate
for
rfw
right
and
it
still
had.
You
know-
and
I
just
went
to
the
forum
and
said
you
know,
sebastian's
still
the
facilitator
right.
I
go
into
the
mandate
and
it
says
we
will
do
this.
We
will
do
that.
Excuse
me,
yes,
real
world
finance.
Thank
you,
but
my
point
in
all.
That
is
to
say,
if
we're
going
to
put
this
out
there,
you
know
what
does
that
require
the
core
units?
B
B
B
D
You
know
between
the
time
that
the
proposal
was
ratified
and
today
how
things
have
changed,
how
your
deliverables
might
have
changed.
Like
all
of
those
things,
you
know
it's
really
hard
to
set
them
in
stone
reliably.
So
that's
number
one.
So
if
somebody's
saying
hey
like
you're,
not
filling
your
mandate
perfectly,
you
know
yeah
as
a
facilitator.
You
have
to
have
a
good
answer.
Oh
like
we
actually
dropped
this
project
because
of
x,
y
and
z
context.
You
know
or
oh
we
actually,
you
know
expanded
to
this
new
project.
D
That's
not
that
wasn't
on
our
original
mandate,
but
replay
you
know.
So
you
have
to
have
a
bit
of
ability
to
put
things
in
context
for
how
your
core
unit
is
performing.
Also,
I
think
I
mean.
Essentially
it
boils
down
to
being
able
to
answer
for
like
criticisms
of
where
the
perceived
shortfalls
are
right,
and
it's
hard
to
be
very,
very
objective
with
that,
because
it
requires
context
and
there's
nuance,
and
you
know,
depending
on
the
team,
things
can
really
change.
Yeah
go
for
it.
D
I
think
I
think
it's
also
not
even
just
about
the
specific
deliverable
or
the
specific
thing
like.
I
think
I
think
maybe
something
that
the
amendment
should
focus
on
here
is
a
pattern
of
missing
deliverables,
whether
they're,
small
or
large,
like
like
really
what
you
want
to
find
is
not
like
single
instances
of
poor
performance
but
more
like
patterns
of
consistent,
underperformance
and
address
those
rather
than
like.
You
know
these
two
or
three
specific
deliverables,
although
you
could,
you
could
kind
of
do
both
but
yeah.
That's
kind
of
my
thought
on
it.
D
C
Thanks,
I
guess
one
concern
I
have
about,
like
you
know,
trying
to
make
it
entirely
about
deliverables.
Is
it
does
potentially
cap
potential
reasons
for
off-boarding
right
like
because
there
are
many
legitimate
reasons
that
may
not
be
related
to
to
the
mandates
themselves
like
ethical
concerns
right,
if
someone
does
something
unethical,
you
probably
want
to
offer
them
as
soon
as
possible.
Yeah
there's
also
like
social
layer
too
right
like
what.
If
a
corgina
is
delivering
on
everything,
they
said,
they're,
delivering
that
everyone
hates
working
with
them
right.
C
What,
if
they're,
really
unpleasant,
really
terrible
to
work
with
like
there?
There
are
so
there's
a
multitude
of
reasons
that
you
might
wish
to
get
rid
of
someone,
so
you
do
have
to
be
careful
when
trying
to
put
in
putting
legislation
like
requirements
as
people's
motivation
for
for
off-boarding
may
not
be
the
the
same
that
you
had
in
mind
when,
when
you're
drafting
that.
B
B
You
know,
done,
didn't
need
to
be
off-board
because
they
theft
or
you
know
some
really
high
severe
issues.
You
know
how
do
we
factor
in
emergency
off
boarding?
You
know
we
were
prepared
for
something
like
that.
There's
there
was
a
article
that
I
read
recently
in
an
another
dollar.
They
someone
had
identified
the
treasurer
as
someone
who
had
stolen
from
their
dow
and
they
did
an
emergency
off
boarding.
B
B
It
was
a
quick
vote,
it
happened
and
they
were
done,
and
you
know
that's
something
that
I
think
should
be
considered
as
well
as
we're
talking
about.
Not
just
you
know,
someone
that's
in
it
like
in
a
traditional
company.
You
don't
do
well,
they
put
you
on
a
probation
period.
They
try
to
work
with
you
and
correct
those
work
issues,
but
then
there
are
other
ones
where
you
know
certain
situations
where
you
know
that
particular
person
is
just
a
real
sore
to
the
company.
B
D
That's
all
right,
I
think
I
think
piggy
piggybacking
off
of
peyton
and
your
question
I
think
maybe
there
should
be
like
recommendations
for
what
should
be
included
in
a
justification,
whether
it's
under
performance
via
like
explaining
it
through
the
deliverables
or
like
an
unethical
action.
You
know,
I
think
those
should
all
be
recommendations,
and
I
think
I
think
basically
having
it
as
hard
requirements
is,
is
kind
of
yeah
it's.
It
doesn't
really
work
in
my
opinion,
like
it
really
is
kind
of
us.
D
It's
like
a
mix
between
subjective
and
objective,
because
you
could
objectively
say
like.
Oh,
this
person
did
something
like
morally
like
wrong
and-
and
you
know,
should
the
whole
core
unit
suffer
for
it,
or
should
they
just
be
off-boarded,
it's
also
kind
of
challenging,
because
there's
no
administrative,
central
sort
of
control
over
core
units
like
what
happens
when
a
a
core
unit
with
a
single
facilitator
who
has
like
you,
know,
access
to
the
operational
wallet.
D
You
know
one
of
one
multi-sig
like
what
happens
when
they
do
something
unethical
like
to
an
extent
like
that's
a
risk
that
the
doubt
takes
and
they
could
just
cut
the
tie.
But
of
course,
like
it's
very
situational
yeah,
I
don't
I
don't
kind
of.
I
don't
really
know
where
my
thoughts
were
going
with
that,
but
yeah.
B
Well
again,
the
new
amendment
is
it.
You
know
it
points
out
these
explicit
and
implicit
deliberates.
I
think
that's
something
that
we
need.
We
need
to
continue
to
marinate
on
think
about
the
direction
and
what
those
those
are
I
want
to
move
on
to
another
question
I
have,
which
is
what
steps
would
help
maybe
to
avoid
involuntary
opportunity-
and
we
talked
about
you-
know
some
of
the
things
that
folks
will
do,
and
it's
been
very
public.
B
It
goes
out
in
the
forum,
you
know
one
of
the
one
of
the
examples
we
used
was
with
the
voluntary
off-boarding
for
ducks
and
it
was
clean.
It
was
I've
got
a
succession
plan.
I
believe
this
person
qualifies
he's
been
around
the
maker,
dow
and
we'd
like
to
submit
this
proposal.
Okay,
that
that
was
clean.
B
However,
the
others
really
had
a
lot
of
public
scrutiny,
a
lot
of
discussion
and
could
that
have
been
avoided
if
we
had
and
I'm
going
to
get
to
this
question
in
a
minute,
but
have
sort
of
an
administrative
person
that
says
okay,
we
need
to
take
a
step
back
and
we
need
to
look
at.
How
can
we
avoid
you
know?
Can
we
come
to
an
agreement?
I
think
that
was
something
that
was
a
common
theme
that
I
was
reading
like
all
right.
B
Should
we
take
steps,
should
it
be
an
option
where
we
can
have
in
a
group
or
somebody
over
with
oversight
administration
of
pulling
this
back,
and
I
know
again,
comments
have
been
made
about
it,
but
I
wanted
to
get
folks
thoughts
on
you
know.
Maybe
what
are
some
steps
to
avoid
involuntary
off-boarding
anybody
want
to
chime
in
on
that
one.
D
Sometimes
it
will
be
totally
unavoidable,
because
you
know
somebody
could
just
post
a
proposal
and
then
it
becomes
kind
of
a
question
for
the
public,
but
in
the
case
where
it's
coming
from
an
internal
stakeholder
or
a
stakeholder
who's,
like
I
don't
know,
just
more
ingrained
in
the
community
and
and
honestly
like
stakeholders
should
care
about.
You
know
not
taking
this
to
the
extreme
if
it
doesn't
have
to
like
it.
B
I
want
to
lead
that
into
would
the
off-boarding
process
maybe
is
improved.
We
had
an
internal
review
committee,
so
some
conversations
have
come
up
to
say.
I
know
mariano
said
on
the
gnr
call.
You
know,
could
there
be
a
internal
review
committee
that
helps
process
the
off-boarding
request,
identify
internal
solutions
and
avoid
unnecessary
voluntary
actions?
B
Has
that
been
something
that
has
been
something
discussed
or
at
least
brought
up?
But
I
was
wondering
for
the
purpose
of
this
call.
Is
anybody
have
any
thoughts
on
you
know?
Maybe
we
should,
or
maybe
we
don't
need
a
review
committee,
a
little
more
oversight
or
administration
on
handling
these?
These
types
of
these
types
of
events.
B
You
know
I
think
one
of
them
is
you
know,
how
would
that
look?
How
would
that
be?
Would
that
be
within
a
core
unit?
Would
that
be
a
an
advent
individual
that,
once
that
off-board
and
request
comes
up,
then
they
kind
of
take
the
ball
and
roll
with
it?
They
try
to
work
through
solutions,
but
yes,
peyton.
C
C
Also
like
got
to
attend
like
I
don't.
I
don't
know
what
to
call
they
pitched
as
like
a
conflict
resolution,
speed
dating
for
daos
the
other
day
thanks
to
lenka,
and
that
was
really
cool
to
hear
that
all
these
conflict
mediators
are
are
willing
and
wanting
to
work
in
the
web,
3
space
and
so
like
there
are
outside
people
you
you
can
utilize.
D
D
In
which
case
you
know,
maybe
they're
subject
to
centralized
like
influence
or
something
or
can
it
be
actually
sort
of
like
a
committee
of
various
people
from
various
core
units,
like
perhaps
somebody
from
strategic
finance,
somebody
from
scs
somebody
from
govcoms
to
evaluate
the
different
aspects
of
in
in
various
cases
of
core
unit
like
issues,
and
I
think
that
would
probably
preserve
the
centralization
and
also
not
act
as
a
gatekeeper,
but
just
more
act
as
like?
Yes,
as
an
assessor,
you
know
an
independent,
assessor.
B
Yeah,
I
think
that
that
was
the
idea
is,
is
taking
a
look
at
the
experiences
we've
had
and
say:
well,
we
had
someone,
that's
independent
and
we've
got
all
of
these
this
process
and
they
are
independent
of
the
core
unit.
Maybe
it's
someone
who
can
say
we've
got
all
this.
We've
got
the
request.
We've
got
the
we've
got
the
review.
We've
got
the
information.
B
What
what?
What
steps
do
we
need
to
take?
Would
they
be
someone
who's
responsible
to
try
to
find
you
know
they're
trying
to
avoid
you
know
the
involuntary
opponent
find
solutions
find
ways,
but
just
it's
a
thought.
It's
almost
like
a
hr
function
in
in
some
regards.
You
know
someone
that
gets
the
data
processes.
The
data
and
you
know,
goes
through
that
process,
and
so
I
just
that
was
it's
not
addressed
necessarily
in
the
amendment.
B
A
Hi
everyone
it's
kianga
yeah.
I
I
like
this
idea
very
much
and
david
to
your
point
like
maybe
that
committee's
assembled
per
per
incident,
and
so
that
you
avoid
whoever
may
have
a
conflict
of
interest.
You
can
kind
of
pick
among
you
know
someone
from
the
delegates,
someone
from
this
core
unit
and
put
together
that
just
that
kind
of
report
in
a
public
fashion
but
yeah.
I
really.
I
really
think
this
would
be
valuable
to
consider.
B
B
What
is
the
succession
plan
not
just
for
the
facilitator
being
off?
What
about
the
team,
members
and
contributors
of
an
off-boarded
core
unit?
So
if
you
have
let's
say,
for
example,
content
production
that
that's,
you
know
the
example
of
saying
we
look
at
the
critical
needs
of
that
core
unit
right
and
when
we've
got
a
team
of
people,
do
they
really
qualify
to
be
off
board?
You
know
is
what
is
a
session
plan
for
a
team
member
that
may
be
doing
a
very
good
job,
and
now
they
don't
have
a
choice.
B
I
looked
at
and
I've
interacted
with
many
of
the
content
production.
Folks,
you
know
helped
have
helped
our
team
out
on
certain
projects
certain
things,
but
what
is
it
that
we
should
maybe
consider
about
other
team
members
and
I'll
I'll?
Never
remember
this
quote,
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
comments
was
well.
B
We
think
you're
valuable
to
the
dow
and
now
that
your
core
units
off-boarded
well,
you
can
reapply
to
maybe
a
new
core
unit
or
we'll
find
a
solution
for
you.
But
what
does
that
look
like
you
know?
How
do
we?
How
do
we
attend
to
positive
team
members,
good
team
members
that
have
actually
done
well?
It
seems
like
there
isn't
a
back
and
forth
or
an
opportunity,
maybe
for
them
to
move
on.
We
what
I
just
want
to
bring
this
up,
because
I
don't
think
it's
really
been
addressed.
B
Necessarily,
I
think
it
sort
of
has
been
addressed.
But
I'll
tell
you
I
I
fear
sometimes
that
let's
say
if
our
core
unit
is
off-boarded,
you
know
what
would
I
do?
How
would
how
would
we
look
at
the
other
team
members?
So
I
what
what
I'm
trying
to
ask
is
do
we
feel
like
there
should
be
a
succession
plan
that
it
tends
to
the
other
members
of
a
core
unit.
The
contributors
now-
and
I
say
that
just
in
in
light
of
the
recent
content
production
off-boarding
for
the
whole
team,
david
yeah.
D
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
for
hugging
the
mic
so
much,
but
I've
been
thinking
about
this
stuff
a
lot.
I
I
think
there
should
be
an
important
distinction
to
be
made
between
off-boarding
a
facilitator
and
off-boarding
a
core
unit
when
you're
off-boarding,
a
facilitator,
you're
recognizing
that
the
the
the
work
and
mandate
and
fundament
the
fundamental
work
of
the
core
unit
is
valuable.
So
you
understand
there
might
be
a
lot
of
dependencies.
You
understand
that
that
core
unit
might
be
tied
to
a
key
roadmap
item.
You
understand
that
you
know.
D
D
We
as
stakeholders
think
the
entire
core
units
mandate
of
work
is
just
not
valuable
enough
to
keep
around
and
we're
essentially
like
gutting
the
team
and
and
that's
a
pretty
crude
way
to
say
it,
but
nevertheless,
and
in
those
cases
like
what's
important,
is
obvi,
you
know
you
want
to
retain
as
many
relationships
as
you
can
like.
I
think
it's
important
not
to
burn
bridges
if
you
don't
need
to
and
to
give
people.
D
Second
chances,
because
there
are,
you
know
a
ton
of
resources
put
into
onboarding
a
given
individual
to
make
or
doubt
there's
a
ton
of
there's
a
huge
learning
curve
and
people
who
do
end
up
really
sticking
around
who
are
talented,
like
they
are
very,
very
valuable
and
I
think
it's
important
to
be
able
to
route
them
to
other
opportunities
with
the
dao
at
other
teams,
but
but
yeah.
So
my
whole
point
is:
there
should
be
a
distinction
between
those
two
cases
like
very
strong
one.
B
D
Have
another
I
have
another
comment
and
just
like
just
kind
of
like
a
best
practices
for
departments
and
organizations,
type
of
things,
so
I
I
think
I
learned
from
one
of
my
old
mentors
that
you
know
a
really
good
leader
makes
sure
that
that
they're
training
up
somebody
in
their
shoes
always
because
you
never
know
when
you're
gonna
go
and-
and
I
think
that
applies
for
core
units
with
like
very
fundamental
sort
of
mandates
of
work.
So
you
know
a
great
example
is
gov
alpha
right.
D
Gov
alpha
has
a
goal
to
have
three
governance
facilitators.
The
reason
for
that
is
redundancy
right.
It's
it's
security
for
the
protocol
they're.
They
are
a
fundamental
key
piece
of
the
operations
of
maker
deck
and
so
any
core
unit.
That
has
that
kind
of
designation
and
obviously
it's
kind
of
subjective
and-
and
you
know,
leave
that
question
open.
But,
yes,
session
is
really
important,
make
sure
you're
training
a
prodigy,
make
sure
that
you
have
your
dependencies
and
all
your
key
stuff
listed
somewhere.
You
know
yeah
it
yeah.
That's
that's!
D
Essentially
it
like
you
want
to
basically
future
proof.
You
want
to
reduce
the
bus
factory,
you
want
to
future
proof
maker
dow
by
not
letting
it
depend
on
the
stuff.
That's
all
in
your
head.
Basically,
if
you're
a
key
core
unit,
but
of
course
yeah.
But
of
course
that's
the
judgment
that
has
to
be
made
by
each
individual
yeah.
B
B
You
know
we're
gonna,
give
two
weeks
to
for
to
winding
down,
and
the
period
may
need
to
be
longer
than
that.
You
know
there
may
be
like
to
david's
point
a
lot
of
stuff.
If
we,
if
we
off-boarded,
you
know
gov
alpha,
just
I'm
just
going
through
that
out
there.
There
is
so
many
things
that
need
to
be
taken
into
consideration
right,
and
so
I
think
that
in
the
amendment
it's
talking
about
it
like
a
two-week
period
or
has
been
suggested
a
two-week
period,
but
I
think
that
we
should
you
know.
B
D
I
think
that's
primarily
a
communications
challenge,
because
obviously
each
core
unit
has
different
requirements,
like
some
core
units
can
wind
down
in
two
weeks,
but
others
might
need.
You
know
three
months
right,
yeah
even
even
long
mentions
in
the
chat
like
that.
Gov
alpha
keeps
three
months
of
a
continuity
emergency
fund
and
actually
govcoms
does
the
same
thing
but
yeah,
there's
kind
of
specific
rules
that
govern
when
we
could
use
that.
But
yeah
transition
periods,
I
think,
are
a
function
of
the
competency
of
communication
from
facilitators.
B
I
just
want
to
also
be
mindful
of
tom,
and
I've
got
one
or
two
other
quick
questions.
I
want
to
pose
the
next
one
is
about
media,
and
I
think
this
is
this
one's
a
little
more
straightforward.
I
think
we
held
well
with
the
defiant
and
the
comments
that
were
made,
but
what
we
had
several
delegates.
We
had
core
unit
members
make
comments.
B
We
have
some
good
relations
with
the
media
and
you
know:
should
those
media
inquiries
be
more
centralized,
you
know
like
have
a
you
know,
have
them
have
more
of
a
central
aspect
like
we
have
an
actual
statement
that
we
make
or
an
off-boarding
statement
an
official
statement
for
maker,
or
you
know,
part
of
what
we
do
in
you
know,
govcoms
is
to
say
we're
reaching
out
and
touching
base
with
with
media,
and
I
think
again
we
did
a
pretty
good
job
with
this
last
one.
But
it's
going
to
happen
again.
B
It
may
be
more
severe
and
maybe
more
complicated,
and
even
with
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
in
the
article,
I
just
wanted
to
get
quick
thoughts
on.
Could
we
do
a
better
job
in
reaching
to
the
media,
maybe
making
an
official
statement?
Should
there
be
some
sort
of
legal
statement
you
know
and
in
my
opinion
I
was
just
thinking:
hey
we're
always
going
to
have
to
communicate
with
the
media.
Have
we
done
a
good
enough
job,
a
satisfactory
job
and
what
we
did
and
how
do
we
see
that
in
the
future?
B
A
Yeah
question:
is
there
like
a
a
pr
or
a
press
relations
person
or
function?
I
think
there's
some
value
in
someone.
Who's
got
training
in
that
that
we
could
publicly
say
you
know
pr,
not
that
anyone
could
put
forth
a
statement
on
behalf
of
maker
dao.
I
think
that's
problematic,
but
but
someone
whose
job
it
is
to
be
on
top
of
stories
that
break
and
the
media
knows
that
they
can
go
to
and
that
person
can
help
them
understand.
B
D
Yeah
so
originally,
when
govcoms
was
proposed,
our
part
of
our
mandate
was
like
media
relations
support,
and
it
was
a
very
reactive
model
where,
basically,
because
we
had
access
to
managing
our
stakeholder
database,
any
incoming
media
requests,
we
would
provide
a
point
person
and
we
would
basically
route
them
to
the
subject
matter:
expert
or
person
involved
in
whatever
breaking
story.
There
is
we
we
didn't
initially
intend
to
do
stuff
like
press
releases
or
anything
like
that,
and
at
the
same
time,
that
we
proposed
this
content.
D
Production
was
proposing
a
more
proactive
media
relations
position
where
they
were
actually
hiring
for
right
before
the
off-boarding,
where
they
would
do
a
lot
more
proactive
stuff,
not
necessarily
on
breaking
news,
but
more
like
it
was.
It
was
a
mix
of,
like
you,
know,
kind
of
like
marketing
pr,
rather
than
like
reactive,
sort
of
like
real,
like
public
relations
like
crisis
management
style
pr,
and
so
with
the
departure
of
marketing.
We
actually
put
up
an
informal
poll
as
part
of
one
of
our
previous,
like
bi-weekly
updates
from
our
team
asking.
D
You
know,
like
we've
been
thinking
and
we've
put
out
some
writing
about,
like
what
we
think
press
releases
can
do
at
maker
dow,
whether
they're
a
good
idea
in
what
situations
would
they
be
appropriate
and
and
really
like?
You
know
we're
considering
hiring
a
full-time
press
relations
person
for
exactly
the
things
that
you
mentioned
and
so
yeah.
The
signal
seems
to
be
pretty
strong
that
the
dao
would
like
this.
D
B
Thank
you
david.
I
appreciate
that,
but
again,
being
mindful
of
thomas
just
got
a
minute
here
wanted
to
ask
the
this
is
the
last
question
in
the
series
here
is
something
came
up
about?
How
can
we
make
this
a
more
positive
experience,
and
I
think
this
came
from
talent
asking
you
know?
Is
this
something
that
we
want
to
look
at,
and
maybe
we
want
to
to
implement?
You
know
exit
interviews
or
feedback
surveys
or
something
that
we
can.
You
know
initiate
to
learn
more
about
how
that
last
process
went
now.
B
B
When
you
have
an
off
board,
you
know
the
next
person
says
that
we're
trying
to
onboard
talent,
okay,
what
happened
here
you
know
so
posing
the
question.
Really.
How
do
we
make
this?
A
more
positive
experience?
Does
that
include
again,
you
know
some
of
these
things
with
you
know,
feedback,
surveys
or
exit
interviews.
B
It's
just
it's
just
a
thought
that
I
I
want
to
bring
out
to
the
group
here
as
we
wrap
up
so
any
thoughts
on
the
off-boarding
experience
trying
to
make
that
a
little
more
positive,
because
it
seems
a
little
right
now.
The
the
tone
is
a
little
set,
a
little
negative
to
a
degree
and
we
certainly
don't
want
folks
to
say:
oh
gosh.
Well,
you
know
yes,
david.
D
Man,
I'm
so
sorry
for
hacking
them,
but
so
many
thoughts
about
this
stuff.
I
think
that
number
one
people
should
understand
that
it's
it's
cultural
right,
like
I
think
maker
dad,
has
done
really
well
to
focus
on
the
issue
and
not
the
person
in
many
cases,
but
when
it
is
really
kind
of
like
you
know,
the
person
at
fault
like
yeah
trying
to
go,
you
know
not
as
as
non-public
as
you
can
up
until
you
know,
to
try
to
prioritize
voluntariness
is
probably
key.
D
Like
saving
faces
very
important
for
people,
you
know
you
don't
want
to
be
publicly
disgraced,
because
you
know
you
took
on
a
role
that
you
you
might
have
been
like.
It
might
have
been
too
much
for
you,
but
ultimately
you're
still
a
smart
person
with
a
great
work
ethic.
You
just
weren't
right
for
that
role
at
the
time.
D
So
so
I
think
it's
also
it's
very
situational,
I
think
in
general.
It
should
really
focus
more
on
yeah
trying
to
prevent,
like
kind
of
the
publicity
of
it
as
much
as
possible
when
it's
not
necessary,
like
I
think
that's
the
best
thing
you
can
do,
because
then
people
will
actually
be
willing
to
do
stuff,
like
exit
interviews
and
they'll,
be
willing
to
do
stuff
like
graceful
transitions
and
and
also
in
combination
with
something
like
a
severance
package
or
an
incentive
or,
like
you
know,
a
lead-off
time
period.
D
The
dao
identifies
a
problem
and
says
okay
like
for
us
to
be
better.
We
have
to
deal
with
this
and
like
that
in
itself
is
a
very
positive
thing.
It's
like
you
know,
the
system
is
getting
better
or
the
organization
is
seeking
to
get
better,
but
how
do
we
salvage
as
much
value
from
that
as
we
can?
You
know?
How
do
we
retain
the
talent?
How
do
we,
you
know,
help
people
save
face?
Those
are
those
are
some
of
my
thoughts
on
that.
B
I
appreciate
it.
Those
are
very
good
points.
You
know
maybe
on
the
outside.
Looking
in
they
say
you
know,
let's,
let's
put
it
in
and
light
that
we're
trying
to
better
our
company,
and
this
is
what
we've
done.
We
have
gone
through
and
provided
opportunities
provided
severance
packages.
We've
done
all
the
right
things.
We
want
you
to
know
that
it's
not
you
know,
just
a
you
know
something.
We
just
cut
ties
with
someone
and
didn't
do
the
right
thing
by
them
and
I
think
that's
very
important.
B
So
I
know
we
are
on
time
or
out
of
time.
I
wanted
to
ask
a
quick,
open
discussion.
Is
anybody
have
any
other
thoughts?
There's
a
lot
we
covered
today.
Many
many
questions
we'll
have
this
information
out
here
soon
and
I
wanted
to
see
if
there's
any
other
thoughts
and
very
good
ideas
today
very
good
conversations.
I
think,
but
wanted
to
ask
anything
else.
C
C
We
do
something,
it's
almost
never
pretty
so,
hopefully,
after
this
becomes
a
little
less
raw,
some
content
people
might
be
willing
to
share
like
what
it
was
like
on
there
and
and
where
they
think
it
could
be
improved,
because
that
would
be
super
beneficial
to
us,
but
I
think,
even
without
that
participation
we
still
have
a
a
good
handle
on
a
lot
of
things
that
that
could
be
better,
so
don't
be
afraid
to
to
iterate.
You
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be.
The
next
version
doesn't
have
to
be
perfect.
B
Yeah
and
and
that's
an
excellent
point
peyton
thank
you
for
for
that.
I
do
want
to
remind
everyone
too
and
that
in
the
call
notes,
we've
got
the
links
to
all
of
the
information
here
today.
The
forum
conversations
the
defiant
article,
the
amendment.
All
of
that
please
please
go
visit,
go
take
a
look
at
the
amendment
and
you
make
the
comments.
This
is.
This
is
such
a
great
opportunity
for
us
and
I
really
appreciate
everybody's
time
joining
us.