That makes sense to me. I’d suggest to rephrase the purpose using the wording from the Guardians Telegram channel description, wdyt?
Also, if we’re just talking about a Discord channel for informal discussions, I don’t think this should require us all to vote on an SEP. Does anyone feel strongly about that?
If you want to get pedantic, then let’s look at the text of my discord message:
I’ve been asking for literally “informal communication”. Also used the text “ad-hoc” discussion. I’m not discussing the purpose of the channel as I introduce it, I am asking if it’s possible to create.
This back and forth texting and missing nuance is EXACTLY why we need more low-barrier communication channels. It’s now taken us more than two weeks to talk about CREATING A DISCORD CHANNEL. This could have been aligned in a 5 minute voice chat.
It looks like there’s alignment then! My remarks where really just based on our interaction here on the forum, so apologies if I missed some context you had in conversations with others elsewhere.
There’s a Discord channel for governance now, with the purpose of providing space for such informal, ad-hoc discussions amongst the community that do not relate to decision-making of SEPs directly. The Discord team will help moderating it and we can use the channel to help referencing proposal-related content on the forum.
I hope that everyone will benefit from this channel while nobody perceives it as additional baggage. Since decision-making will continue to take place exclusively on the forum and the Discord channel will exclusively host informal, non-binding discussions, nobody should feel obliged allocate their scarce attention to yet another channel.
@links, what’s your take on this proposal itself then? The community call-part was considered done since there already was one, and creating a Discord channel did not require an SEP. Can we consider this phase 0 proposal resolved, in your opinion? Not to say that there’s nothing else to improve on ‘communication in SafeDAO’ - there’s a lot more of course. Just saying that we could discuss them in separate threads to keep things tidy and easy to follow if you consider this proposal broadly done.
Cross-posting this comment in Discussion about SafeDAO voting power - #31 by theobtl here for visibility, especially this part:
I’m Adrian. I’ll post something about myself in the intro area after this. Oddly, a friend of mine and I were talking about the safe forum and how high barrier to understanding what’s going on with Safe it is. What is going on? Honey, am I outside? (Drunk Karen from Will and Grace)
I used to write a weekly news letter for the MakerDAO governance community (Called Maker Dai-gest…killer name huh?) Anyhow, I would summarize the big concepts into bitesize
readable understandable nuggets. People could subscribe, but I also posted on Reddit, Medium, Github, Cent I think.
At the risk of making a sweeping generalization…DAO nerds use difficult language (typically engineers…) and love to list every iteration of their thought/idea/proposal. Sometimes less is more people. Pick your favorite suggestion and go with that. I personally get confused by too many choices on the cereal aisle…let alone 8 different ways to implement an SEP.
Safe needs to open up to more community participation like what I did, but I didn’t do it for free. I was compensated under their grants program. I’ve been waiting for a program like that to step forward with a similar service i could provide to the Safe community. I guess let’s talk when the tokens are transferable and a grants program is in place.