GOC-0017 DAO Committee Operators

1. Meta Data

Original Author(s): Oliver Zerhusen (ozerhusen@gmail.com), Kyle LaRue (kylelarue00@gmail.com)
Creation Date: 06/15/2022
Stage: Withdrawn
Live Date:

Last Version:
Last Version Date:
Last Version Author(s):

Organization: DAO
Tag(s): Coordinape, DAOHaus, Financials, Forum

Version GitHub Commit-Hash Comment
Not yet live

2. Summary

This GOC describes the scope and engagement of DAO Committee Operators who are tasked with providing necessary support functions for DAO Committees in an effort to keep operations running without interruptions and monitor the completion of committee projects and tasks. It also describes the compensation structure, eligibility criteria, voting procedures, and term lengths for this role.

3. Motivation

Decentralized organizations receive most contributions from its members via part-time efforts. Many members cannot guarantee consistent weekly contributions, which may lead to temporary gaps for the DAO to deliver on its goals. DAO Committee Operators are meant to bridge that gap.

DAO Committee Operators engage wherever there may be shortfalls in necessary contributions. They lead by example and thereby inspire others in the DAO to join their efforts. Many committees have complex structures and intertwined processes that not every DAO member may be aware of at all times. As domain experts, DAO Committee Operators also serve to ensure that other committee members are calibrated and aligned around the same goals that the respective committee pursues.

4. Specification

4.1. Role Responsibilities

The role of a Committee Operator is to cultivate engagement and contributions from all Committee members and, ultimately, to ensure the completion of essential committee tasks and projects. The ideal mindset of an Operator is to lead by example in an effort to inspire fellow committee members to also take initiative. An Operator is also encouraged to coach and mentor on committee assignments to help other committee members succeed in their contributions.

The Committee Operator role shall not be viewed as a fallback to assign responsibility to complete unattended committee tasks. It is expected that Operators demonstrate above average level of engagement within a committee, however, that does not make Operators accountable to complete all tasks. It is recognized that a committee’s best chances to fulfill their assignments is maximized only when contributions are made from a broad group of committee members working together.

As guidance, below are some critical qualifications an Operator shall bring into the role and against which they may be assessed:

  • Attention to detail
  • Well organized
  • Good communicator
  • Inclusive mindset
  • Builder

4.2. Compensation

Committee Operators receive 20% of a committee’s allocated compensation budget at the end of each epoch. In the event that there are two Operators in a given epoch due to a transition, only the DAO member serving as the Operator at the end of the epoch will receive the compensation described above.

In addition to the 20% of a committee’s compensation budget, Operators are also entitled to the same compensation opportunities via Coordinape in the same way as all other DAO members working in committees.

4.3. Term Length

Committee Operators will serve a term of 6 months, with no term limits. Terms begin on January 1st and July 1st of each calendar year.

4.4. Voting

4.4.1. Eligibility Criteria

Operators must be DAO members and shall have demonstrated qualification and engagement as baseline eligibility criteria at the time of voting. Therefore, in order to be eligible for the Committee Operator role, a DAO member must have received at least 50 GIVE in Coordinape in the respective committee for the prior two epochs. This criteria ensures that a DAO member was active in the committee leading up to the voting, and also has met minimum criteria for contributing value to the committee, as determined by fellow DAO members in Coordinape.

A DAO member shall only be eligible to become an Operator in one committee at the same time.

4.4.2. Nomination

Committee Operator nominations are posted in the Forum no later than two weeks prior to the start of each voting period and will remain on the Forum for ten days. Nominations shall include the following information:

  • Name
  • Nominated Committee
  • Brief narrative of the motivation for nomination

DAO members may nominate themselves or another committee member for the Committee Operator role, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria. If an eligible DAO member receives a nomination from another committee member, the nominated DAO member must accept the nomination to establish their candidacy in the Committee Operator voting period.

4.4.3. Regular Voting

Voting for the Committee Operator role will be conducted via a 10-day, off-chain voting period by way of a Forum poll. The voting period will begin four weeks prior to the start of the next term (January 1st and July 1st). Only DAO members in the associated committee are eligible to vote in the election.

To win the election, a Committee Operator candidate must receive a simple majority of the eligible votes. The Committee will use Coordinape to capture and record a snapshot of the eligible voters in the election prior to the start of the off-chain voting period. Forum moderators will ensure that the committee group’s assignments are accurate at the beginning of the voting period.

In the event of a tie, the following tie-breaker rules shall apply in the following order:

  1. The candidate with the most voting shares in DAOhaus wins the election.
  2. If the tie remains, then the candidate with the longest tenure in the DAO wins the election.
  3. If the tie still remains, then the candidate who has received the most GIVE in that Committee’s Coordinape Circle for the previous two epochs wins the election.

The below chart provide a visual flow of the entire voting process throughout the calendar year:

4.4.4. Voting to Remove Operator

Any committee member can post a yes/no vote in the Forum to request the removal of a Committee Operator via off-chain vote. Such proposals shall be underpinned with substantive reasoning that explain the suggestion for removal. The following represent justification reasons the DAO members may consider to support the removal of an Operator:

  • Breach of Code of Conduct
  • Neglecting Committee responsibilities
  • Overreaching in authorities
  • Low quality of contributions
  • Lack of communications

4.4.5. Special Election

If an Operator leaves in the middle of a term, a special voting will take place to elect a replacement following the same format as specified for regular elections. The term length following a special voting lasts for the balance of the regular term until either June 30th or December 31st.

5. References

5.1. Relevant GOCs


Thanks @Mr.1776 and @Oliver for putting this GOC together. This is a really intriguing concept to help ramp up our committee operations.

How would we measure the (relative) success of committee operators? 20% of committee budget is a significant chunk so I think defining and tracking success from the start could benefit the committee health long-term. Here are some quick ideas I had for potential key performance indicators (KPIs) for operators:

  • Metrics like new tasks per epoch, total open tasks, and tasks completed per epoch or per epoch-hour (normalizing for hours the operator contributed during the epoch) could help us monitor operator contributions but admittedly lack nuance (all tasks do not have same complexity).
  • Tracking number of non-meeting hours contributed per epoch could also provide insight into contributions but important work also occurs during meetings. Meeting hours contributed per epoch could also be useful to track to ensure operators aren’t in “meeting purgatory” each epoch.
  • There are likely countless more options, I just thought of these few with my coffee. Curious to hear what others think.

Thanks again for proposing this. Look forward to the discussion.


Thanks Alex. The roles & responsibility section intently steers away from specific duties for this role, in fact stating that it is not designed to be a fallback role to complete unattended tasks. The success of the Operator should be very closely tied to the goals of the respective committee.

Implementing performance assessment metrics for the Operator role specifically would also concern me for a couple of other reasons: 20% of even the largest committee budget today (Advocate: $8K USD/month) equates to less than a $20K annual compensation. That is far below any compensation level I have seen a role being subjected to a corporate-level performance assessment evaluation and it would seem unreasonable imo.

Individual KPIs in the AdvocatesDAO structure to me would feel like introducing a corporate structure. I would prefer to see DAO/Committee-level goals that we are all committed to together as a whole, not for individuals. The proposal does include a section on how to remove Committee Operators, which provides a path for committee members to react to perceived lack of performance.


I mostly support this GOC, but I fully support the introduction of Operators within the DAO. Here is a list of my concerns:

  1. I have reservations related to Operators receiving GIVE (“In addition to the 20% of a committee’s compensation budget, Operators are also entitled to the same compensation opportunities via Coordinape in the same way as all other DAO members working in committees”). It seems to me that a 20% of the Committee budget is sufficient compensation. In addition, I have low confidence that committee members will be able to distinguish between Operator activities that merit GIVE and those that are covered by the 20% compensation (this risk is heightened by the fact that Operators will likely be the most visible and active individuals in committees).

  2. I think the following clause should be modified as such: " The justifications for which DAO members may support the removal of an Operate may include, but are not limited to:

  • Breach of Code of Conduct
  • Neglecting Committee responsibilities
  • Overreaching in authorities
  • Low quality of contributions
  • Lack of communications"
  1. Term Length. Should we include some language that states Operators can not be automatically rolled into the following term? I am envisioning a clause that would protect against having an Operator’s term roll into subsequent terms automatically without formal voting and/or nomination.

  2. Should we have a clause that addresses situations where there is no Operator willing/able to participate? I envision a clause that establishes a contingency plan where a member of the committee, for example, can temporarily step into an Operator role (at some level of compensation) until a more permanent Operator can be identified.

  3. I propose we add a bullet about “meets deadlines” or “completes tasks on time” in the following list: "As guidance, below are some critical qualifications an Operator shall bring into the role and against which they may be assessed:**

  4. Lastly, I think it would be very advantageous to have a boilerplate “scope of duties” for Operators. This could be generic enough to be included in this GOC or more specific (generated by the various committees). After reading this GOC, I do not have a strong or specific sense for the exact tasks/duties an Operator will perform.

Thanks for all the effort on this!


I also mostly support this GOC but want to note a few areas that could be problematic:

  1. Like others have suggested, I think there could be some more concreteness for expectations of the role. We could brainstorm some ideas that strike a balance between avoiding traditional corporate structure while still providing guidance and accountability to the role.

  2. Regarding section 4.4.1. Eligibility Criteria, the part that calls for at least 50 GIVE in prior two epochs to be eligible… it looks like many people opt out of receiving GIVE so those people would be ineligible. Just something to consider. Perhaps we could remind people to make sure to opt in for GIVE during the September and October epochs if they want to be eligible for the Q4 nominations.

  3. Regarding section 4.4.3. Regular Voting - “To win the election, a Committee Operator candidate must receive a simple majority of the eligible votes.”
    → I could see this not being attainable in many instances. E.g. 1, assuming a committee of 15 members, a candidate would need to receive 8+ votes to win. What if some committee members forget to vote? E.g. 2, if 3 or more people are running for Committee Operator, and the vote is something like 40% for Candidate 1, and 30% for Candidates 2 and 3. This would fail to reach the > 50% requirement.

It might be better to change “a simple majority of eligible votes” to “the most votes of those casted.”

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Glad to see general support for the idea of Committee Operators and all the engagement / suggested edits. My responses to the suggestions and comments below.

The desire to more clearly define the role makes sense to me if we can balance that with avoiding a traditional job description feeling and maintaining the idea that the Operator, at least in my opinion, is not a doer of all tasks but more of a facilitator to ensure tasks are done and done on time.

The individual KPI’s could be tricky in my opinion because of the variance of tasks in Each Committee. For instance, if The Grants Committee Operator is receiving 20% of a budget that’s half the size of Advocates Committee, should they only be expected to complete half the tasks as the Advocates Committee Operator that quarter? Not impossible to do it that way, but it does seem challenging and/or problematic.

That said if we can be a bit more specific to the scope of duties I’m in favor of it. Because it could help both the Committee and the Operator understand the expectations of the role better.

For @Nick’s suggested edits:

  • #1: I’m torn on this and will have to mull it over and a bit more.
  • #2: I’m in support of this change
  • #3: I’m in support of this change
  • #4: I’m in support of this change
  • #5: I’d be in support of this if we make it “ensures the Committee completes tasks on time and meets deadlines” to emphasize that they don’t have to (and shouldn’t) do everything themselves.
  • #6: In favor of this if it’s the more generic approach. If Committees want to get more detailed with the specific tasks they expect to be completed by their Operator, that makes sense to do independently in my opinion.

To @dannyb ’s edits: In favor of all three.

Thanks again everyone for the feedback and ideas!


4.1 Role Responsibilities

I agree with the broad description of the role here and agree that the role should not be associated with specific tasks. If members feel that an Operator is not fulfilling the Role Responsibilities they can always propose a vote to remove the Operator at any time.

4.2 Compensation
I’m not confident that the compensation structure outlined incentivizes the role. On one hand I feel that the members who are taking on committee operator type tasks now are under compensated with the current structure so a percentage of the budget would help to balance that. On the other, I foresee that (1) there are issues with the current DAO compensation structure and (2) a percentage of the budget for operators could cause confusion around how to then allocate additional GIVE in Coordinape to an Operator.

For example on the first point, in Epoch 2, I contributed 39% of the recorded hours for ops committee - which came out to a rate of about $17/hr based on the amount of GIVE I received. With the current structure, from a time tracking standpoint, the committee members contributing the highest number of hours tend to earning the least per hour. I’ve done a Chart Analysis of all committees hourly rates for each epoch that confirms this trend. I realize that some of the higher rates are due to a lack of reporting time but in general we should see a trend line that is mostly horizontal indicating that members are compensated at a similar rate. Ultimately, I believe there is a larger issue with the DAO Compensation model. Instead of incentivizing all members (not just Operators) to spend their time & efforts working in the DAO it appears to be the opposite.

If we are able to fix the overall compensation model for the DAO (potentially going to an hourly rate structure for everyone), naturally Committee Operators (and anyone else) spending additional time completing tasks would benefit without needing a specific percentage of the budget. They could instead receive a small bonus at the end of their term as gratitude for the term commitment to the responsibilities and their leadership.