Roadmap & Strategy Ad Hoc Committee

As @ken pointed out, the team asked the community to help out with brainstorming next steps for Rocket Pool.

I propose electing a committee with representation from the pDAO, the oDAO, and the Rocket Pool core team, with a mandate to define a roadmap and strategy for Rocket Pool to serve as guidance over the coming 6-12 months.

A few key points:

  • I am suggesting that this be an ad hoc committee firstly because there was a call for community input that may not occur again in the same way, in the future, and secondly because it would provide potentially-useful data about whether having a strategy committee is effective, and what shape an effective strategy committee may take.
  • Dimensions of strategy are already accounted for, to an extent, in that the team, the IMC, the GMC, and the oDAO each strategize independently within their domains. Determining the specifics of the relationships between existing structures and the strategy committee should be one of its goals.
  • The committee would be tasked with presenting strategic guidance and a roadmap to the community, after which it would be disbanded.
  • For now, this is a call for discussion before formally proposing an RPIP.

The goal of this post is not to create more processes, but to induce progress toward an effective roadmap for Rocket Pool. If a strategy committee seems like a poor solution, then please share any other ideas you have in this thread!

1 Like

I think that’s a very good idea. Roadmaps give the developers a rough direction and it gives the public more confidence that the product is constantly being improved and improvements are well thought out.

So having the multiple parties define next steps together seems logical.

However, I propose to have more of a long-term roadmap of 1-X years. 6 months is basically just 1 or 2 big version iterations and hardly qualifies as roadmap.

1 Like

I like this idea. I think this is a great way to better use the bounty system to leverage community skills and passion. I think 6-12 months is appropriate in cryptoland. My concern is that without further guidance from the pDAO, the mandate would be: ‘do what you feel is best’. I think ways to better ascertain the strategic priorities of the pDAO itself (ie to preserve decentralized identity) could include (in my order of preference):

  1. concurrent snapshot vote with a list of strategic goals (aka Ken’s list), with multiple choice or ranked choice voting. The elected committee would then have a mandate to execute on the priorities laid out by the pDAO.
  2. have a single open but stable committee: anyone can commit to join/participate, but further enrollment is closed before discussions start. This ensures a wider array of voices but prevents the noETH/pETH problem of people jumping in at the last minute wanting to contribute without understanding how decisions were arrived upon.
  3. have nominees explicitly list their strategic priorities-essentially what they will fight for on a roadmap; thus the pDAO is indirectly signaling its priorities, rather than voting for the most active/smartest/best looking members
1 Like