Context

Working groups were formed to tackle broad project areas that the Validator Commons is moving forward on. Over time, some of these working groups have initiated new projects which overlap with other work groups while some working groups are single projects.

The problem arises for new members trying to make sense of what activity is happening and how to contribute.

Proposal

• To reorganise and rename working groups into more functional groups.
• To more clearly identify the specific initiative and to make clear how people can contribute

The intention here is to emphasise functional teams that then collaborate. This is achieved by thinking about the end-to-end life cycle of any given initiative.

For example, someone working on the validator assessment does not necessarily need to also think about what the go-to-market strategy is. That can be organised by an engagement and/or marketing team members.

Structure

<aside> 💭 This will be represented graphic soon.

</aside>

• Core membership/leadership (Yet to be defined but has been noted by Zafercan Cakir and LOA Labs that this should be clarified)
  • Member/community management
  • Finance/Treasury
  • Marketing (externally to a general audience. Would leverage what is generated in Product and Engagement)
  • Ecosystem engagement/events (leverages product to create engagements. Promoted by marketing)
  • Product (e.g. what VC does.)
    • Juries
    • Validator Assessment
    • Proposal Bootcamp
  • Policy Development (internal and external)

<aside> 💭 Mapping of existing working groups still to come.

</aside>