# New management committee for pDAO planning **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [18 February 2023 12:46 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/new-management-committee-for-pdao-planning/1550 "2023-02-18T12:46:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![Valdorff](https://dao.rocketpool.net/user_avatar/dao.rocketpool.net/valdorff/32/319_2.png) [@Valdorff](https://dao.rocketpool.net/u/Valdorff)\ **Post date:** [18 February 2023 21:29 UTC](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/new-management-committee-for-pdao-planning/1550/3 "2023-02-18T21:29:44Z")
I’m not sure what this MC _is_. Currently, the people with soft power are the people that _do the work_. Want power? Organize a thread, write an RPIP, track down a dev from a website messing up RP numbers, etc. It’s not as hard as it appears. I also 100% understand folks not thinking they can push for changes they personally care about, and believing someone else knows better. My very first DAO post was something I tried to get someone else to post, because they would be more recognized by the community. I was encouraged to put it up myself, even though I was new (shoutout to @knoshua and @invis iirc). First PR? Similar story. First RPIP? Similar story. My worry is that a steering MC adds another barrier (or even a perceived barrier). Ie, folks will be _EVEN LESS_ likely to write a forum post or an RPIP if there’s an advisory board to decide what’s worthy and write RPIPs. It sucks that I’m an author on RPIPs 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Nobody should have that much soft power. But I think a steering committee _exacerbates_ that problem instead of fixing it – it formalizes that a specific small set of people _should_ have power. Fwiw, I think it’s _good_ that an unelected random can influence things. I don’t have a suggested solution here. On the one hand, I really struggle to get people to engage - especially in #Governance or the forum. On the other hand, I really struggle to have substantive discussions in #trading; eg, I had someone arguing about self-limiting numbers and outright refusing to read the 2 paragraphs the numbers came from, even though they had been copy-pasted into #trading. - I do think there’s room for an administrator to post little summaries and encourage people to look at discussions. - I do think there’s room for the community to look for opportunities to encourage people to take more direct action (writing initial posts/drafts/whatever). - I do think we should help with perceived technical challenges - Formal offer for RPIPs: anyone that can email or write a document in any format - I can do the git part on your behalf (and/or teach you), and am happy to work with you to get it formal/formatted > **Less-important thoughts from the problem statement section** > > Prob2 - I think there might be a convex vs concave thing here… I’m not sure we have one set of values, which I’m good with. > > Prob3 - I agree; action bias is a real issue. > > > [@epineph](#): > > > > Example, RPIP-17 has 99.5 approval with thousands of votes, but the important bits were decided by a handful of people on discord over a fairly short time frame > > This makes it sound back-roomy. There was chat for 9 days in a thread on discord. There was a forum thread for discussing the draft RPIP for 7 days. I personally shouted it out at least 4 times in #trading and 4 times in #Governance (and I suspect it was mentioned more times, but that’s a quick search 🤷‍). --- _[View the full topic](https://dao.rocketpool.net/t/new-management-committee-for-pdao-planning/1550)._