Reduce the set of Head Ambassadors and start an effective Ambassador Program

Governance
1

This post is written on behalf of a group of Head Ambassadors who will sign this message shortly.

Today, we have posted a proposal to remove 10 Head Ambassadors and to launch a 100-day plan to get the Ambassador program finally started. Our main reasoning is that 21 Head Ambassadors is too much to get anything done quickly (or at all) and the program has not gotten anything done in its first 2 months, which is very frustrating for all of us. We intend to change this as quickly as possible with a specific plan around 5 key areas:

  • Onboarding & Education
  • Community Growth
  • Business Development
  • Investor Relations
  • Customer Success & DevRel

You can find the proposal here: Ref 1186

We will not wait for the execution of the proposal to get started. We will start taking steps that we think everyone can agree on immediately to push the program forward.

We are very well aware of the weight of this decision and that it will create a lot of discussion and possibly heavy feelings in the community. We want to ensure that this discussion can happen as responsibly as possible. To that effect, we are creating this forum post and suggest to the community to make thoughtful contributions to this thread and use it as the primary place to discuss the matter.

We all want Polkadot to succeed and it is not always easy to choose between being nice and getting things done. In this case, we choose to get things done.

16 Likes
2

lol on friday

4 Likes
3

Isn’t that the industry standard when it comes to breaking bad news, do it on Friday afternoon? :smiley:

Kidding aside, we just had a meeting with some of the forcefully removed members and discussed a framework that is pretty much in line with the plan:

The 100 day plan addresses bits and pieces of this model and the plan has potential to evolve into a more holistic framework. Not the nicest approach but I agree with the reasoning.

3 Likes
4

Thats a good one, Tomi. Thanks for sharing.

For the sake of transparency: personally I was not among the original list creators and was called only a few hours before this went live. I think it is a good solution to lower the number, but if I’d put this list together, that would be different. I suggested edits however to lower the drama amount.

Having only a very short time to react and being in kind of a FUD state, the logical and realistic conclusion for me is to support such a dramatic move. If nobody would have taken action who knows how long the struggle would go on with infinite amount of bureaucracy.

My article on the 1-on-1 is ready to be published, so once this drama is settled a bit I’ll share the summary. I think many people will understand after, why fast and dramatic moves are needed now and in the upcoming months.

I am also proposing compensation for those who worked hard and getting removed. We need to be more fair imo.

5 Likes
5

IMO the way the ambassador program was put into shape was way too rushed, without having thought about all the details etc.

I’m personally also not a fan that some of these members now try to remove 11 other members. This is a little bit too much randomness for me :wink:

I personally would propose that we nuke the current program completely and restart. We need better elections. I would propose we take the old council mechanism and have a fixed term of 6 months or maybe 1 year before people may get exchanged, because they did not deliver or whatever. If we use the old council mechanism, bringing this on chain should hopefully not be that complicated.

This thread should also not derail into finger pointing and more drama. Instead we should for once take the opportunity and setup a program that really works, with payment etc.

20 Likes
7

To be honest, I would suggest that all 21 ambassadors submit a report of fewer than 100 words detailing their work over the past few months while on payroll. Then, let the community critique or appreciate their contributions. Removing people too quickly isn’t a solution, as some of them are talented.

However, I dislike the fact that some ambassadors have jobs with other blockchains, and when they attend events, they represent multiple companies, including competitors.

In those cases, they should be removed immediately, as their incentives no longer align with Polkadot. They are not held accountable for their role as Polkadot ambassadors as they are for their other jobs, which may lead them to favor other blockchains.

8

That’s the only solution for an ambassador program to have a real legitimacy: nuke everything, discuss and propose a new program, then start elections from scratch.

I can’t think about the actual program any differently than a big joke, it was enforced by “Michiko himself”, only this fact makes it an eternal circus show.

8 Likes
9

Nobody has been on payroll–Head Ambassador payments have not yet passed through OpenGov

1 Like
10

Good suggestion, but it would take too long. Planning, implementing, and voting on this through OpenGov could take many months. We would lose out on opportunity cost.

For now, I think it’s better to focus on improving our current system, which we’ve already invested significant time and resources in shaping. We can consider an upgrade to “Ambassadors 2.0” when it’s ready.

1 Like
11

So much time has already been lost doing things wrong, it’s time to take the right time to do things properly.

2 Likes
12

Yeah it will take some time. However, the current program is not paying anyone and we could just nuke it. This proposal of 100 day program itself, without the removal of the other 11 people, could be its own proposal with a certain price point attached. Or even better a bounty and they get paid based on reaching their milestones.

Then we take the time in between to setup the program from scratch with a proper plan. This way we don’t loose any time, but still setup the program in a better way.

4 Likes
13

The Polkadot Ambassador program should be canceled for good and restarted with a new name after a while. There is zero trust in this entity and the people around it. Idea is ruined in absolute, congratulations. Big thanks to Whale, Michiko Watanabe and some other main caracters.

Polkadot Head Ambassador is toxic title already.

5 Likes
14

Regardless of whether they’ve been paid or not yet, all current HAs should publish a detailed timesheet and self-assessment report similar to the self-assessment reports on Page 16-34 of this “AMI Bounty Report #2 - Admin, Activities, & Self Assessments”

2 Likes
15

I completely agree with this. A bounty could work while the entire program is being set up, preferably with curators who have no conflicts of interest, paying child bounties for achieved objectives.

Something like what ThomasR proposed here.

a3325583113189cc3800959a534bbc87d8a6827a_2_1035x619
a3325583113189cc3800959a534bbc87d8a6827a_2_1035x6191035Ă—619 50.2 KB

16

I am saddened to see how far infighting in this HA program has come, but I have to respond here nonetheless. The proposal talks about improving efficiency and reducing costs in the HA Program, but I think it’s time to see it for what it is: A power-grab by some self-appointed elites.

As such, it is deeply undemocratic and flies in the face of OpenGov and everything Polkadot is supposed to stand for.

This proposal attempts to reduce the number of HAs from 21 to 10. This in itself is not necessarily a bad idea because yes, the program has been somewhat bloated and inefficient. But if we agree to cut the numbers in half, I am sure every DOT holder will have their views about who should be in and who should be out. Who is best placed to represent Polkadot as ambassador. I certainly have my views on this, but my views are irrelevant here. What we all should be able to agree on, is that the way the above list was created, was deeply undemocratic.

As a reminder, every HA has been individually voted into the program through OpenGov, and only OpenGov can vote people out again. So who do DonDiegoSanches and his cronies think they are, that they can come up with a list of who they like and who they don’t? They have not provided any evidence why they think THEY are the right people to take this HA program forward. Similarly, they have not stated any specific reason why they believe the other 10 individuals should be dismissed. They only present the finalized list to OpenGov for a binary AYE/NAY vote.

If DonDiegoSaches and his co-conspirators had been serious about reforming the program (which they were not – this is simply an attempted Coup), there would have been a much better way: Create a Wish For Change request to reduce the headcount to 10, and if that passes, leave it up to OpenGov to vote on who remains, and who has to leave. That at least would have been democratic.

I’m all in for reforming the HA program and making it more efficient. But if we allow an unelected group of self-appointed “leaders” to pat themselves on the shoulder, saying how great they are while stabbing their own peers in the back, this entire program is destined for doom.

Giotto recently launched a proposal to cancel this Ref, which should be supported! My conclusion is simple: If we wanna reduce the size of the HA collective to 10, sure, let’s do it. But let OpenGov decide who’s in and who’s out.

4 Likes
17

OpenGov is deciding on this. The referendum to reduce the HA cohort is up for vote, and DOT holders can decide if they want it or not.

The creation of proposals is never democratic to my knowledge. Was there any transparency or democracy behind the proposal that created the Ambassador Collective in the first place? (Spoiler: there wasn’t.). The democratic(-ish, this is token voting, after all) part is what happens next: DOT holders vote on the referendum.

2 Likes
18

Before rushing into a new unplanned rush which may cost us additional months… it may make sense to ask the active HAs to do at least a retrospective, listing what worked and what didnt (in a public way), gathering key learnings from the first try and build upon these learnings. Right no there are literally 0 insights on what exactly went wrong within the HAs the past 2 months. No stated learnings and rushing into a new try doesnt sounds that much effective to me as it will likely simply repeat the same issues while expecting different outcomes.
Also very much against moving fast and not loosing more time, cutting time in planning only leads to messy executions. Take the time it needs, dont get rushed by own ambitions, make sure to develop a speed everyone is able to follow and to maintain…" building in the speed of trust"

3 Likes
19

Lemma 4: Web3 is the norms and principles of the Free World applied to the digital realm.

“And it turns out that we should be…not emotionally driven, not driven by passions, but driven by rational discourse in order to come to an idea about how the world works and what decisions we should take.

We should be open about this discourse, and so forth.”

Gavin Wood, Polkadot Decoded Asia 2024 presentation on individuality, vid

Friday was a disappointing day to see what happened to the Head Ambassadors. While drama has always been the life of an HA, it was definitely surprising to see that one group of HAs had sectioned themselves off and along with some community members, made a private discussion/judgment of which of the rest of the HAs should stay or go, which resulted in this proposal, which is being put in front of token holders for approval.

Three reasons were given:

  • Too many cooks in the kitchen slowed progress
  • The primary responsibility of HAs is to be leaders
  • The cost structure should be lean at the beginning

Personally, I haven’t been happy with the progress we’ve been making in moving the ambassador program forward, so I agree with the overall sentiment here that more needs to be done (and faster). But I believe this proposal is misguided and sets a poor precedent for the culture of the ambassador program as well as Polkadot, and I hope my colleagues who are putting it forward realize that.

There are a few points I’d like to emphasize:

  • The 100 day plan was supposed to be prepared by a working group. Instead of coming back to the larger group with the plan, it seems they started to discuss this action. It seems disingenuous to blame “too many cooks in the kitchen” for not getting things done, when actually one group split off from the rest and stopped participating.
  • In a professional setting, you always have people that you disagree with that you need to work with, and working through differences, while inefficient at first, results in a stronger team moving forward. In this situation, it seemed like there were only a few overall meetings that occurred before the group decided to exit the collaborative process and work to split the group.
  • Leadership is bringing together people of different backgrounds and persuasions, and working through differences and achieving a result, and true power is not having to use it. There will be similar challenges to grow the ambassador program moving forward, because the team will need to work in a multicultural global environment with complex personalities. If the “leadership team” is starting off by eliminating a people-problem instead of working to solve it, how can the community have trust that something similar won’t happen again?
  • The culture of the ambassador program should be results focused, not politics focused. How can a decision like this be made without letting the community understand the results generated by ambassadors for the past few months via an open process? Like in the technical fellowship, results should be presented before an evaluation takes place. HAs should lead by example in this way to set healthy standards for the community.
  • Making an evaluation and decision in a non-transparent political and strategic way by a small group seems to be against the ideals of web3. “Trust me that we chose the right HAs and approve them please.” It seems like there is a consequentialist (the ends justify the means) argument made here to justify progressing faster, but this is a slippery slope. “How” something happens is just as important as “what” happens, and we cannot compromise on the former if we are to really steward web3 into the world and create a resilient DAO.
4 Likes
20

Dear Mister Cole. The reason I say this proposal is undemocratic is because it presents voters with a pre-set list of people. How for example would you vote if you want me out, but Mario in. Or Leemo out and Lucy in? Both AYE and NAY to to this ref are suboptimal choices. It is an omnibus bill that bundles people into incoherent groups. If we are to reduces the size of the program, it would be much more democratic to vote on each of the HAs individually.

1 Like
21

Although I don’t think that critique has anything to do with democracy (runtime upgrades, for instance, are omnibus bills, as are many others), but your broader position is a reasonable one. The good news is that thanks to OpenGov, anyone can propose individual referenda for each HA, and this referendum doesn’t in any way preclude that course of action.