The PERSONA NON GRATA proposal to enter your lives <3 X

Hello everybody, this is Joss & Sofia, the PERSONAS :slight_smile:

Our proposal to join the DAO has just appeared and we are here to answer any questions or pending prophecies you have going :crystal_ball::cupid::woman_mage:

Here is a handy link so you see the kinds of things we like to do: personanongrata.space/, and some more on instagrama.

We are quite excited to join a new space where to create, thanks!

I think this proposal presents an interesting novelty, two people (let’s call you a “group”) applying for a single membership. Can you say a little bit about how you plan to engage with the DAO if your membership application is approved? (e.g. would you establish a process between yourselves for deliberating on which proposals to vote for? What will you do if you find yourselves in disagreement over whether a certain proposal should be passed?) Do you have plans to DAOify your group into a subDAO of Trojan?

Hello!
Thanks for the interest, Adam! Here are our answers to your 3-shaped question.

Our plan here is to produce.
We have come to prefer seeing the most modern process design as ‘something made as we produce’, rather than as an end. At least that’s our experience and we trust it.
We will deal with disagreements in a similar way as we deal with them outside of the Internet :stuck_out_tongue: :

We perceive
We talk
We consider feelings and hunches
We strategize
We imagine a solution
We produce–execute.

We would love to expand our knowledge and practice alongside people here, new producers.

Secondly, we also trust each other a lot: we have a third-space entity we channel in order to answer or act from a joint mentality, which we’ve been using throughout 2019. If one of us isn’t available one day (it happens), the other is free to act from this space. Quite nerdy stuff but we like Patricia Shoemender, our third space entity :grinning:

Lastly, we aren’t as interested in governance to the extent you suggest (i.e. DAOifying) at the start.
We are interested in growing this “DAO of Arts” quite deliberately!
We expect and would love to see others leading the governance aspect, while we lead production(s). This is of course not an absolute, but we appreciate this chance to reiterate our intent.

Our first and most important priority is to have something to contribute inside the TrojanDAO.

We will be supportive of governance, but self-appointing for action :muscle::muscle:
We hope there is the space for that.

Alrighty off we go, the PERSONAS, as we prepare for a winter holiday party this afternoon!
Have we answered your questions?
Greetings from Scandinavia!! xo

This does answer the questions, thanks!

I’m going to ask a follow up, however, not because I want to grill you guys but because I think your application offers a valuable opportunity to think through the nature of nested organizations.

James S has described you guys as a “collective;” assuming this is a fair characterization, is your collective open to receiving new members?

By admitting collectives to the DAO, we open up a sort of “back door” into the DAO, whereby one can enter by joining a collective which has already gained membership rather than applying to the DAO directly. What implications does this have on the membership process? On the DAO itself?

(I’m not raising this question to suggest that we should vote down the membership request. It seems to me that the question is relevant in light of the proposal, and we as an organization should work to come up with a satisfactory answer before proceeding so as to “do things in the right order”. The answer doesn’t need to be long or complex, I just want us to engage with the question and agree on a way forward.)

Thanks for indulging me!

Hiii again!

Ufff we hear you: we believe with all honesty that your intention isn’t to grill, we don’t even know each other! Unfortunately, the process of grilling others while their entrance is pending feels harsh, and we would love for this to change.

We decided we are all up for answering and figuring out, as long as we keep moving in our application :smiley: : either for good or no.


Our answer!
We’d say no: our collective isn’t open to receiving new members because Sofia & I want to make and sign projects using the PERSONA identity together…
BIG ‘however’: that also feels like an incorrect statement because by entering this DAO space, and deliberately wanting to produce with others, we are letting others in. Does this view make sense? Duality!

Here’s what we prefer:
We prefer to take the steps that allow us –and the entity– to create rather than the governance & design steps.
Therefore, for us there is no difference: we can enter as individuals or as a duo. Maybe that’s a good insight for governance! That there are entities that would (re)consider their shape in order to advance!

Another insight for governance >>> that humans can lie, and we might also be a group of 52 reindeers that pose as humans in the northern lands, just so we can make reindeer projects :smiley: :sweat_smile:

We will support making governance decisions once/if we are in it together, it just feels weird to make these informal opinions… about ourselves… as if seeing ourselves from the sideline, knowing these opinions will kick us out or no :upside_down_face::upside_down_face::upside_down_face::upside_down_face:

Ok several interesting points brought up here.

Adding to this conversation, I would like to approach the issue brought up from the persective that Trojan is a proposal-driven DAO, and many aspects of how a proposing team organises itself in order to achieve the deilverables of their proposal towards the DAO is something that goes beyonds the scope of the DAO itself.

I do agree that a team making a proposal to the DAO should define clearly - on the proposal level, how they will work together so as to achieve the goals of their porposal. This helps the DAO to make an informed decision when voting in project-based teams.

I do not think that the DAO should by default veto proposals from teams that manage their processes in a certain way (i.e.informal, institutional, cooperative, DAO). But rather that there are many different factors that come into play, for the community to assess alignment or not. Each case is different and should be approached singularly. Personally I like the fact that the DAO can interact with more informal group structures, in contrast to an institution, that can only give grants to other institutions or defined bureaucratic entities.

Another point brought up by Adam, which may not be of particular relevance to this proposal but probably will be in future proposals, is the potential to help teams that are proposing to the DAO, to DAO-ify themselves. Should we be actively incorporating this into our mission? If so, should we set up a work-flow for such a process?

As brought up, social verification is an important safeguard for the process! I voted “yes” on Persona’s based on our history of working together and interacting in DAO structures and artistic productions (Interface exhibition in Osaka). There is simply no blockchain protocol that can replace getting to know a proposer better! As a voter I have enough proof to make a confident “Yes” vote, in full knowledge that they are not 52 Reindeers posing as artists, although that would have also been a cool scenario!

For all the above reasons I would encourage a proposal onboarding flow whereby proposals be posted and discussed publicly on the Proposals section of the forum, and also in the “proposal draft box” on the website, where members can do all the due diligence prior to the posting of the proposal to the DAO, but also, as is the case now, during the voting period. In fact this is one of the good reasons that the voting period lasts 7 days.

I would also encourage your feedback on the onboarding processes as they are shaping up! I will be making some suggestions in a different post in the Processes section!

I hope this reply was helpful!

1 Like

This discussion got me thinking about the usefulness of having a weekly call where new proposers are invited to present their proposals in a more discursive way to the community. I would love your thoughts on this. Discussion here

I realize that me being the only one in the call with PERSONA last week may have caused some information assymetries. Follow-up questions and discussions around the proposal by other DAO voters is highly encouraged!

Hi again everyone. First of all, let me say to the Persona Non Grata folks that it wasn’t at all my intention to make you feel attacked, although that was seemingly the result. James and I had discussed in the past that this forum should be used to document our practices as we create them, both so that we keep a record of the org’s history and so that we can at some point (or more accurately, iteratively over time) ‘harden’ these informal practices into more formal processes. I should have also noted that my question about the implications of admitting collectives was addressed not only to the applicants but to current members as well.

Based on Persona Non Grata’s second response, I think that the “collective question” can be tabled for now, but I suspect it will come up again in the future. I’m fine discussing it now or later.

I also think James’s recommendation of having a group call where applicants can introduce themselves is a good idea, a way to make our off-chain processes more robust. Will respond to that thread shortly.

One thing that did surprise me a bit in Persona Non Grata’s answer was the line “We prefer to take the steps that allow us –and the entity– to create rather than the governance & design steps.” To me, while the Trojan DAO is an artwork in itself, and a vehicle for funding the creation of other works of art, the primary objective is not to make art but to create a replicable technical/organizational framework that other artistic communities can copy and deploy in order to win a greater degree of self-determination for themselves as artists/creators. So I’d like to hear a bit more from Persona Non Grata about their disinterest in governance topics (if I’m not misrepresenting their position by describing it as “disinterest.”) But I’m happy to save that for the group conversation that James has suggested.

OK have a great weekend everyone (to those of you who observe weekends)!