Transition to the On-Chain Collective: Next Steps for the Ambassador Fellowship

[ltfschoen]

Participation Considerations:

• Technical Fellowship members may decline joining the Ambassador Fellowship on-chain to maintain privacy, manage time commitments, preserve domain focus, prevent governance overload, and avoid conflict-of-interest voting penalties.
• Others may have competing responsibilities or belong to specialised off-chain collectives with unique expertise slated for future on-chain transition.
• Non-participants may miss formal governance authority, economic benefits, verifiable reputation, emergency powers, and direct ecosystem influence.

Potential Approaches for Discussion:

1. Transparency Mechanism: Higher-ranked ambassadors declining on-chain transition could consider providing explanations to help the community understand patterns and address legitimate concerns.

2. Collaborative Risk Assessment:

• A community-driven risk workshop facilitated by a neutral third party could help identify and document governance challenges
• The Technical Fellowship might consider supporting this initiative as it benefits from cross-collective mechanisms
• An on-chain risk register could serve as a shared resource for ongoing governance improvements
• Broad participation would strengthen collective understanding of governance risks and opportunities

These ideas aim to support the multi-layered accountability and governance resilience concepts we’ve been exploring, while respecting the autonomy of all participants in the ecosystem.

[Mujungu]

Sounds like you’ve got a solid plan for getting the ambassador program to a mature state. All stoked about the hybrid approach for the ambassador program, and your team’s offer to help with DAO setup, contract extensions, and UIs is super valuable for everyone involved.

[ltfschoen]

URGENT: Ambassador Fellowship Consent Analysis

Action Needed: Pause On-Chain Inclusion of “NO” Voters

After analyzing the polling process associated with proceeding with going on-chain in the next Polkadot runtime upgrade using the current version of the Ambassador pallet, I’ve identified a critical governance issue requiring immediate attention.

Key Finding: Those who voted “NO” to the second poll (“Should we proceed with going on-chain in the next Polkadot runtime upgrade using the current version of the Ambassador pallet as proposed?”) have NOT provided complete consent for on-chain inclusion.

Urgent Request: Pause including these members in the on-chain collective until this issue is resolved.

Why This Matters:

• Including members without their complete consent is a non-conformance with fundamental governance principles
• The second poll explicitly asked about both implementation details AND timing
• A “NO” vote indicates discomfort with one or both elements
• Forcing inclusion despite this expressed preference undermines our commitment to respecting individual choice

This is NOT about:

• Permanent exclusion (members remain eligible for future inclusion)
• Questioning community commitment
• Reducing collective size

This IS about:

• Respecting expressed preferences and governance integrity
• Ensuring proper consent before on-chain inclusion
• Optimizing resources by focusing on members who are fully aligned and ready to participate
• Creating effective collectives that can function efficiently without administrative overhead

The Two-Poll Sequence

1. First Poll (Google Form):

   • Question: “The Fellowship will go on-chain following a vote on the current pallet design after the forum discussion. Do you want to be included in the initial Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship on-chain collective with the above details and therefore receive a vote?”
   • Nature: Established conditional intent to participate, contingent on approving implementation details in a future vote

2. Second Poll (Discord):

   • Question: “Should we proceed with going on-chain in the next Polkadot runtime upgrade using the current version of the Ambassador pallet as proposed?”
   • Nature: The actual vote on both implementation details AND timing referenced in the first poll

Consent Analysis

Those who answered “YES” to the first poll but “NO” to the second poll were:

• First Poll Response: Expressing willingness to participate in principle (conditional interest)
• Second Poll Response: Explicitly rejecting the specific implementation details and/or timing, thereby withdrawing their consent to be included under the current conditions

The Pub Expansion Analogy

Imagine “The Fellowship Pub” opening a new location called “The On-Chain Pub”:

1. First Poll = Initial RSVP

   • “Would you like to join us at our new On-Chain Pub location? The exact menu will be decided by group vote later.”
   • You say “YES” - expressing interest contingent on approving the final menu

2. Second Poll = Menu AND Timing Approval

   • “Should we serve the proposed seafood menu at our new On-Chain Pub during next week’s festival?”
   • You vote “NO” because you have a seafood allergy or you’re unavailable next week
   • When asked to explain your “NO” vote, you don’t respond
   • This non-responsiveness creates serious risks:
     • Legal Risk: The pub could be shut down for non-conformance with consent laws if it includes people who explicitly rejected the menu
     • Safety Risk: If your allergy is severe but undisclosed, you could suffer serious health consequences if included against your expressed preference
     • Operational Risk: The entire new location opening could be jeopardized if too many people vote “No” without explanation, creating uncertainty about viability
     • Security Risk: Non-responsive “NO” voters might be deliberately withholding knowledge of design flaws or vulnerabilities in the new pub, potentially planning to exploit these issues later (similar to the fellowship email spam incident where knowledge of vulnerabilities was exploited rather than disclosed)

3. Result

   • The On-Chain Pub should NOT include you despite your initial RSVP
   • Your “NO” to the seafood menu overrides your initial “YES” to attending
   • You maintain your membership at the original Fellowship Pub
   • The On-Chain Pub should respect your expressed preference about both the specific implementation and timing

Current Group Structure

• The Fellowship Pub (Telegram): Original group for all those in the Ambassador Fellowship
• The On-Chain Pub (Telegram): Created for those who voted YES to the first poll, with everyone granted admin privileges
• #fellowship-onchain (Discord): Channel access granted to those who voted YES to the first poll

Security Note: I should note that some current admins of the original Fellowship Pub did not opt into on-chain governance. This creates a potential security concern where these individuals could have privileged access while potentially collaborating with “NO” voters in ways that could undermine governance integrity. This highlights the importance of careful admin privilege management across both on-chain and off-chain spaces.

Clear Recommendations for Different Participant Categories

1. “YES then NO” Voters

Those who explicitly voted “YES” to the first poll but “NO” to the second poll have clearly withdrawn their consent for the current implementation/timing:

• Should NOT be included in the on-chain collective
• Should be removed from on-chain specific communication channels (Telegram, Discord)
• Should maintain their membership in the original Fellowship Pub and all general Ambassador channels
• Should remain eligible for future inclusion if implementation details and/or timing meet their requirements

2. “YES then ABSTAIN” Voters

I recognize that people have legitimate personal circumstances that may prevent voting:

• Family emergencies
• Health issues
• Travel or holiday periods
• Privacy or safety concerns

For those who voted “YES” in the first poll but ABSTAINED (did not vote) in the second poll:

• Should be contacted with a verification poll that clearly explains the implementation details
• Should be given a reasonable timeframe (14 business days) to respond, with an option to request more time if needed for extenuating circumstances
• Should only remain in the on-chain collective, The On-Chain Pub Telegram group, and the #fellowship-onchain Discord channel if they explicitly confirm understanding and consent through the verification poll
• Should be removed from these on-chain spaces if they do not respond to the verification poll within the timeframe or explicitly decline
• Should be able to rejoin later by explaining their extenuating circumstances (e.g. family emergency, health issues, extended travel) that prevented them from responding to the verification poll
• Should maintain their membership in the original Fellowship Pub regardless of verification response

3. Future Participation Pathway

For anyone not included in the initial on-chain implementation:

• Clear re-entry process should be established for future runtime upgrades
• No permanent exclusion - this is about consent for this specific implementation/timing only
• Continued community participation in the broader Ambassador Fellowship is encouraged

This approach balances governance integrity with compassion for individual circumstances, while maintaining clear boundaries and processes.

Verification Poll Implementation

Given that the Web3 Foundation (W3F) is already involved in providing a “final green light” for the on-chain implementation, I recommend:

1. W3F-Conducted Verification Poll: The verification poll for both “YES then ABSTAIN” voters and any “YES then NO” voters who wish to clarify their position should be conducted by the W3F rather than the Ambassador community itself.

   • Poll Duration: The verification poll should remain open for 14 days to align with the timeframe given to participants to respond

   • Poll Platform: The poll should be posted on Discord in the #fellowship-general channel to ensure maximum visibility

   • Direct Notifications: In addition to the public poll, participants should be contacted through multiple channels:

     • Direct Discord messages
     • Telegram messages
     • Email notifications
     • Any other communication channels for which participants have provided consent

     These notifications should be sent to both “YES then ABSTAIN” voters and “YES then NO” voters to ensure they’re aware of the verification poll

   • Clear Documentation: The poll should include links to comprehensive documentation about the implementation details and timing

2. Rationale for W3F Administration:

   • Neutrality: As a third party to the Ambassador community’s internal dynamics, W3F can provide neutral administration
   • Governance Expertise: W3F has experience with proper governance processes and consent verification
   • Alignment with Final Approval: Since W3F is already providing “final green light” approval, they are positioned to ensure proper consent verification as part of this process
   • Reduced Conflict of Interest: Removes potential bias from those who have a direct stake in the outcome

3. Implementation Timing: The verification poll should be conducted before the on-chain implementation is finalized and specifically before the runtime upgrade proceeds. This ensures that consent verification is completed as a prerequisite to any technical implementation steps.

This approach ensures proper governance separation between those implementing the on-chain collective and those verifying consent, reducing the risk of governance manipulation or conflicts of interest.

Accountability and Responsibility for Informed Voting: A Necessary Manifesto Update

While I acknowledge language barriers and other challenges, it’s essential to emphasize that participants should have accountability and responsibility to seek clarification before casting their votes, not afterward:

1. Prior Clarification vs. Post-Vote Explanations: A “NO” voter only sought clarification about what the poll meant after they had already voted. This sequence undermines governance integrity, where understanding should precede voting, not follow it.

2. Diligence in Governance Participation: Effective governance requires participants to exercise due diligence by:

   • Reading proposals and polls carefully before voting
   • Asking questions before voting when something is unclear
   • Seeking translation assistance early if language is a barrier, not at the last minute when language skills are essential for participation
   • Abstaining when insufficient information is available (noting that in the Second Poll, abstention was only possible by not voting, as an explicit ABSTAIN option was not provided)

3. Resource Implications of Post-Vote Clarifications: Addressing misunderstandings after votes are cast creates significant administrative overhead:

   • Requires additional polls and verification processes
   • Delays implementation of governance decisions
   • Creates uncertainty for all participants
   • Diverts resources from other valuable activities

4. Verification Process for “NO” Voters in the Second Poll: While I recommend including “NO” voters in the verification poll to maintain inclusivity, their participation in this process raises an important governance question:

   • For votes cast without understanding: If a “NO” voter confirms they genuinely didn’t understand what they were voting on, their vote should still stand as a matter of governance principle. This establishes a critical precedent for on-chain voting, which is immutable once cast. Participants must bear the consequences of voting without proper understanding, as this creates the necessary incentives for informed participation. Allowing votes to be invalidated after the fact based on claimed misunderstanding would create a dangerous precedent that could undermine the finality of all governance decisions.

   • Educational opportunity: However, this verification provides an important educational opportunity to demonstrate to all participants why seeking clarification before voting is essential. The verification process should document these misunderstandings to improve future governance communications, while still respecting the finality of the original vote.

   • Preparation for on-chain governance: This approach prepares participants for the reality of on-chain governance, where votes cannot be changed once submitted, regardless of whether the voter later claims they misunderstood.

This emphasis on responsibility aligns with our constitutional principles of critical rationalism and enlightened liberalism, where governance participants must engage thoughtfully and proactively rather than reactively.

Recommended Action: The Ambassador Fellowship manifesto should be updated to explicitly incorporate accountability and responsibility mechanisms for informed voting. Currently, while the manifesto addresses voting processes and weights, it lacks specific provisions for ensuring votes are cast with proper understanding.

This update should draw from the accountability principles already established in the Polkadot DAO Constitution, which emphasizes that “in an effort to maintain trust and accountability within the ecosystem, all governance activities, not limited to proposal discussions and voting records, should be visible and transparent to all DOT holders”. The constitution also requires accountability for larger governance actions, which should logically extend to ensuring informed voting.

Such an update would formalize the expectation that participants must seek clarification before voting and establish clear procedures for verifying understanding to prevent governance paralysis and resource waste.

Additional Action - Translation Services: Ambassador Fellowship members for whom English is not their native language should proactively request translation services well in advance of voting deadlines. These members should:

1. Identify themselves as requiring translation assistance when they join the Ambassador Fellowship
2. Demand adequate time for translation services to be provided or volunteered before any voting deadline
3. Not wait until the last minute or after voting to request clarification or translation
4. Consider forming language-specific support groups within the Ambassador Fellowship to assist each other with translations
5. Recognize that all OpenGov proposals are written in English by default, and Ambassador Fellowship on-chain votes may similarly use English as the standard language. As such, this established precedent means language barriers should be anticipated and addressed proactively

The Ambassador Fellowship should establish a standard minimum timeframe (at least 5 business days before voting closes) by which translation requests must be submitted. This longer timeframe accounts for weekends and ensures volunteers or services have adequate time to provide quality translations. This approach ensures both accountability from non-native speakers to make their needs known in a timely manner and responsibility from the Ambassador Fellowship to accommodate these legitimate needs.

Additional Action - Poll Structure Improvements: All future polls and votes should include three explicit options: AYE, NAY, and ABSTAIN, and encourage voters to optionally provide a reason before making their choice. This would:

1. Allow participants with conflicts of interest or insufficient information to formally register their abstention rather than simply not voting
2. Create a clear record distinguishing between non-participation and intentional abstention
3. Provide valuable feedback on why participants abstained, which can help improve future governance processes
4. Enable more nuanced analysis of voting patterns and participation

The verification poll should implement this structure to set the standard for future governance actions.

Additional Concern: Language Barriers - Tip of the Governance Iceberg

I must also consider that some participants may not be native English speakers and may have misunderstood the nuanced meaning of the poll questions. This creates an additional governance concern that extends far beyond our Ambassador Fellowship:

• Participants may have voted without fully understanding what they were consenting to
• The technical nature of implementation details may have created comprehension challenges
• True informed consent requires verification of understanding

Real Example of Language Barrier Impact:

I’ve already seen evidence of this issue in the #fellowship-onchain Discord conversation, where a non-native English speaker expressed confusion about the poll question’s meaning and acknowledged their language barrier might have affected their understanding.

This statement came after the participant had already voted, demonstrating that:

1. They voted first without fully understanding the question’s implications
2. They only sought clarification after the poll had closed and results were released, when it was too late to change their vote
3. They acknowledged their non-native English status might have affected their comprehension

This real example highlights how language barriers can lead to votes cast without full understanding, undermining the principle of informed consent that should underpin our governance processes.

Broader Ecosystem Implications:

This issue represents just the tip of the iceberg for Polkadot governance as a whole. Consider how many DOT holders worldwide are non-English speakers who may be voting on complex OpenGov proposals without fully understanding technical implementation details of runtime upgrades, nuanced discussions happening in English-only comments sections, or the potential second-order effects of governance decisions.

Without adequate translation services and verification mechanisms, we risk creating a governance system that inadvertently privileges native English speakers while potentially disenfranchising significant portions of our global community. This undermines our commitment to decentralization and could lead to governance decisions that don’t truly represent the informed will of DOT holders.

Current Governance Platform Limitations:

Even our existing governance platforms have significant translation limitations:

• Polkassembly: While the interface can be translated to English, Spanish, Chinese, German, and Japanese, these translations don’t apply to the proposal text itself or any of the comments. This means a user might navigate a translated interface only to encounter untranslated governance content.

• Subsquare: Currently lacks any built-in translation options, making it completely inaccessible to non-English speakers without external tools.

This forces non-English speaking DOT holders to either:

1. Vote without fully understanding proposals (undermining informed consent)
2. Use non-Web3 aligned translation tools (potentially compromising privacy and introducing centralization)
3. Rely on informal translations from community members (creating inconsistency and potential for misinterpretation)

Potential Web3-Aligned Solutions:

The ecosystem should consider integrating decentralized translation solutions like Linguo by Kleros or similar Web3-native equivalents.

Concern About Potential Non-Responsive “NO” Voters in the Second Poll

I have already begun reaching out to the “NO” voters of the Second Poll to better understand their reasoning and to ensure transparency in the governance process by taking a respectful but direct approach that balances respect for their decision with the need for constructive feedback to improve governance processes. I posted the following message in the #fellowship-onchain channel:

I noticed you voted NO on the second poll here ⁠⛓️┃fellowship-onchain⁠ regarding on-chain implementation and timing. I’m genuinely interested in understanding your perspective to help improve our governance processes. Could you share what specific aspects of the implementation or timing led to your NO vote? Your feedback is valuable for addressing concerns and potentially improving future proposals. Note that as far as I’m aware the discussion period was extended 14 days after Web3 Summit to satisfy the feedback that was specified in the forum: Transition to the On-Chain Collective: Next Steps for the Ambassador Fellowship - #12 by SpectraCV

This outreach demonstrates a commitment to understanding all perspectives and addressing concerns. It was only initiated very recently (within the last day) so they may not have seen the messages yet.

If they choose to be non-responsive, it could potentially raise the following concerns:

• Some may have voted “NO” without substantive reasons or full understanding of the implications
• There’s a possibility that some votes were cast without careful consideration of the consequences
• Without explanation, it’s impossible to address specific concerns these voters might have had
• This non-responsiveness makes it difficult to improve future governance processes based on feedback

This pattern of behavior further emphasizes the need for verification of understanding from all participants and potentially indicates that some votes may not have been made in good faith or with full comprehension.

Risk of Misinformed Voting

The Ambassador Fellowship has previously experienced coordinated attempts to manipulate governance processes, as evidenced by the Ambassador Fellowship email survey incident. This incident demonstrated how governance mechanisms without proper verification can be exploited through:

1. Coordinated bad-faith participation - Where individuals act collectively to disrupt legitimate governance processes
2. Deliberately misleading questions - Designed to manipulate outcomes rather than gather genuine feedback
3. Lack of verification mechanisms - Allowing for potential manipulation or exploitation of governance processes

These past experiences highlight why we must be vigilant about governance integrity and why verification of understanding is not merely a procedural formality but an essential safeguard against potential manipulation.

Without proper verification mechanisms, I see risks of:

• Including participants who don’t genuinely support the implementation
• Creating governance structures vulnerable to future manipulation
• Undermining the legitimacy of on-chain decisions
• Causing unnecessary delays in governance processes as misunderstandings must be addressed retroactively
• Diverting valuable community resources to resolve preventable governance issues

Practical Implementation and Resource Constraints

While the above recommendation is ideal from a pure governance perspective, I must also acknowledge the practical reality of managing communication channels (e.g. Telegram groups, Discord channels) associated with on-chain collectives and the overhead involved:

1. The Purpose of On-Chain Collectives: The primary purpose of going on-chain is to enable effective voting and governance participation. Members who consistently don’t vote create administrative overhead without contributing to the core function.

2. Resource Constraints: Managing non-participating members requires resources that could be better allocated to active participants.

3. Time-Limited Approach with Cooling Period: To balance inclusivity with practical resource management, I recommend:

   • Include non-voters in the verification poll with a clear deadline (e.g. 14 business days)
   • Clearly communicate that non-response will result in temporary exclusion from the communication channels associated with on-chain participation and not be included in the on-chain collective of the Ambassador Fellowship resulting from the initial runtime upgrade
   • After the deadline, remove non-responders from on-chain Ambassador Fellowship specific communication channels (Telegram groups, Discord channels)
   • Implement a cooling-off period of either 3 months or until after two runtime upgrades have occurred (whichever is shorter) before non-responders can apply to be included again to disincentivize non-participation and make room for new participants

This approach creates reasonable boundaries without permanent exclusion. It respects both governance principles and practical resource constraints while creating meaningful disincentives for non-participation:

1. Prioritizing Responsive Participants: By excluding non-voters from the next runtime upgrade, we create space for new, potentially more engaged participants to be included instead. This ensures that on-chain governance positions are filled by those demonstrating active interest and participation.

2. Reducing Administrative Overhead: The cooling-off period significantly reduces the resources spent on repeatedly processing and managing participants who show patterns of non-responsiveness. These resources can instead be directed toward supporting active contributors.

3. Natural Consequence Structure: Rather than imposing arbitrary disincentives, this approach creates natural consequences that align with the purpose of on-chain governance, where those who don’t participate miss opportunities to be included in governance upgrades.

4. Maintaining Future Pathways: While creating meaningful disincentives, the approach still maintains pathways for future participation once the cooling-off period ends, allowing for changes in availability or interest over time.

This balanced approach maximizes governance effectiveness while minimizing administrative burden.

Technical Solution: “AND Gate” for EnsureOrigins On-Chain Frame Pallet for the Polkadot SDK

A technical solution to prevent this type of governance issue in the future would be to implement the “AND Gate” for EnsureOrigins pallet for the Polkadot SDK that I’ve been developing to address the opportunity raised by Dr Gavin Wood in Polkadot SDK Issue #369. This pallet would:

1. Enforce Multi-Poll Consent: Require explicit “YES” responses to all related polls (first poll, second poll, and verification poll) as a prerequisite for inclusion
2. Automate Consent Verification: Programmatically verify that all consent requirements have been met before allowing on-chain inclusion
3. Prevent Governance Errors: Remove the possibility of human error in interpreting complex multi-poll consent scenarios
4. Create Clear Audit Trail: Maintain transparent records of all consent expressions across multiple polls

This approach would formalize the “AND Gate” logic I’m manually applying in this analysis, requiring affirmative consent at every stage of the process before proceeding with on-chain inclusion. It would significantly reduce administrative overhead while ensuring governance integrity through technical enforcement of consent requirements.

Additional Action Needed

I recommend conducting a verification poll that also includes those who voted “YES” to both polls, so essentially everyone who was invited to vote on the Second Poll would be invited to the verification poll to:

1. Determine if English is their native language
2. Verify their understanding of what their “YES” votes actually meant through straightforward multiple-choice questions
3. Only include in the on-chain implementation those who demonstrate clear understanding

The verification questions should be:

• Straightforward but substantive - Testing basic comprehension of key implications rather than technical minutiae
• Focused on core concepts - Covering what on-chain implementation means, the timing implications, and key responsibilities
• Inclusive by design - Written in clear, simple language that avoids jargon where possible
• Limited in number - 3-5 questions maximum to verify understanding without creating an excessive barrier

The goal is to verify informed consent, not to create an exclusionary test. Questions should confirm participants understand what they voted for without requiring specialized technical knowledge beyond what was presented in the original proposals.

This ensures that all participants have genuinely provided informed consent, regardless of language background, while maintaining an inclusive approach that respects the diverse backgrounds within the Ambassador Fellowship.

Governance Recommendations

1. Respect Incomplete Consent

   • Those that voted “NO” in the Second Poll should NOT be included in the initial on-chain runtime upgrade, regardless of their reasoning, as their explicit withdrawal of consent creates administrative overhead that diverts resources from active participants. Additionally, none of those that voted “NO” have proactively provided their reasoning without first being prompted, further demonstrating a pattern of communication that would require additional administrative resources to manage
   • They should remain eligible for future inclusion when Ambassador Fellowship pallet implementation details and/or timing meet their requirements
   • An opt-in mechanism should be created for when they feel comfortable joining

2. Build on Current Polling Improvements

   • Continue the successful practice of separating “if” and “how” questions as was done with the First Poll and Second Poll
   • Include optional reasoning fields and structured feedback mechanisms beyond just the voting options (e.g. “AYE”, “NAY”, “ABSTAIN”)
   • Further enhance poll clarity by including explicit options to indicate specific concerns (e.g. Ambassador Fellowship pallet implementation design approach, timing, resource allocation) within a single poll

3. Align with Constitutional Principles

   • This approach respects “Enlightened Liberalism” by balancing individual freedom with collective responsibility
   • It upholds “Critical Rationalism” by focusing on substantive reasoning
   • It supports “Web3 Values” by providing tools for direct interaction without forcing trust

Conclusion

Complete consent requires agreement on both participation in principle AND the specific Ambassador Fellowship pallet implementation details and timing. When participants reject implementation details or timing, their initial expression of interest should not override their more specific subsequent choice. The community structure should reflect this by maintaining appropriate separation between those who have explicitly endorsed the proposed Ambassador Fellowship pallet implementation and those who remain general community members without on-chain participation rights.

It’s important to note that those who voted “NAY” in the Second Poll retain their full freedom to participate permissionlessly in the broader governance process. They can still vote “NAY” on the Whitelist Caller runtime upgrade and provide their reasoning publicly if they wish to do so. This governance recommendation only affects their inclusion in the specific Ambassador Fellowship on-chain collective, not their ability to participate in the wider ecosystem governance.

I welcome discussion on this matter but urge immediate action on pausing inclusion while we determine the best path forward.

[Lucy]

UPDATE:

The vote has closed. Here are the results:

• 69 / 127 Ambassadors participated
• 65 / 69 voted aye
• 4 / 69 voted nay

Next steps:

• Awaiting confirmation on timeline for checks, testing and runtime upgrade from the Technical Fellowship. This will be shared as soon as confirmed.
• Confirming whether the 4 that voted ‘nay’ wish to be a part of the on-chain collective now that the vote has passed.
• Seeking final confirmation from the Web3 Foundation that there are no concerns about the move on-chain. Their response will be shared as soon as received.

[ltfschoen]

Decentralized Governance Transition Risk Management Framework: A Parallel Storytelling Approach

This educational document uses parallel storytelling to illustrate governance risks and mitigation strategies through two scenarios: a business scenario involving pub expansion and an abstract governance pattern. The business scenario serves as an accessible analogy to help understand the more complex governance concepts.

The sections of particular educational value include (Scene 6.1) on verification mechanisms and (Key Lesson 3) on transparency requirements. These governance safeguards demonstrate how communities can protect themselves from potential harm during governance transitions. The framework shows that when participants vote without fully understanding implementation details, or when reasoning behind critical votes remains undisclosed, governance systems become vulnerable to manipulation and failure.

The mitigation strategies presented, especially the verification polls that confirm understanding before implementation and formalized accountability frameworks requiring transparent reasoning, represent governance best practices applicable to any community-governed system. These practices maintain vote finality while significantly reducing risks that could otherwise lead to governance paralysis or catastrophic failures.

Note: In this document, "Collective X" and "Collective Y" are abstract entities that could represent any type of organized group such as a working group, organization, DAO, foundation, or other governance structure. The pub names "Community Off-Chain Pub" and "Community On-Chain Pub" are fictional and used solely for illustrative purposes. Due to forum character limits, this document entitled "Decentralized Governance Transition Risk Management Framework: A Parallel Storytelling Approach" may be posted in two parts so please ensure you read both parts for the complete framework.

Author	Date	Version	Status
Luke Schoen	August 8, 2025	Draft 0.1	Educational Draft - For Review

Key to Governance Pattern Scenarios

The governance pattern described in this document is based on a hypothetical two-poll sequence:

First Poll (Expression of Interest):

"Collective X will transition to a new governance structure following a vote on the current design after community discussion. Do you want to be included in the initial on-chain collective with the above details and therefore receive a vote?"

Options: "Yes" or "No"

Second Poll (Implementation Approval):

"Should we proceed with implementing the new governance structure on the proposed timeline using the current version of the system as proposed?"

Options: "Aye – Yes, proceed with the current system" or "Nay – No, do not proceed yet"

Parallel Risk Scenarios: Governance Transition Journey

Scene Name & Risk Level	Business Scenario	Governance Pattern	Risk Reason & Consequences	Mitigation Measures
Initial Interest (Low, 10%)	The owners of the Community Off-Chain Pub announce plans to open a new location called the Community On-Chain Pub and ask regular patrons if they'd be interested in joining. They explain that specific details will be decided later through a group vote.	Collective X announces plans to transition to a new governance structure and conducts an initial poll asking members if they're interested in being included, noting that implementation details will be decided in a future vote.	Conditional interest without commitment creates minimal risk at this stage; minor confusion about what exactly members are agreeing to	Clear communication that this is only an expression of interest, not final consent
Conditional Consent (Low, 15%)	Person A responds "YES" to the initial question about interest in joining the new pub location, with the understanding that they'll have a say in the final details.	Person A votes "YES" to the first poll expressing interest in being included in the new governance structure, with the understanding they'll vote on implementation details later.	Consent is explicitly conditional on future approval of details; potential misunderstanding of the conditional nature of consent	Explicit documentation that first poll is only about interest, not final consent
Implementation Details (Medium, 30%)	The pub owners present specific implementation details and propose a timeline. They ask for a vote on this specific implementation and timing.	Collective X presents specific implementation details of the new governance structure and proposes a timeline. A second poll asks for approval of these specific details and timing.	Specific implementation may reveal concerns not visible in the general concept; some members may discover they don't agree with implementation details	Provide comprehensive documentation and adequate time for review before voting
Explicit Rejection (High, 60%)	Person A votes "NO" to the specific implementation details and/or the proposed timing but doesn't explain why.	Person A votes "Nay – No, do not proceed yet" to the second poll about proceeding with the current version of the governance implementation on the proposed timeline.	Explicit rejection without explanation creates uncertainty about underlying concerns; inability to address specific concerns; potential hidden knowledge of problems	Request explanations for "NO" votes to understand and potentially address concerns
Request for Transparency (Medium, 40%)	The pub manager respectfully asks Person A why they voted against the implementation, explaining that understanding their concerns could help improve the proposal.	A community member respectfully asks Person A to explain their reasoning, stating: "I'm genuinely interested in understanding your perspective to help improve our governance processes."	Legitimate request for transparency could be misinterpreted; potential defensive reactions; missed opportunity to improve proposal	Frame requests in terms of process improvement rather than personal criticism
Safety-Critical Disclosure (High, 70%)	The pub manager emphasizes that disclosing reasons for "NO" votes is a safety-critical requirement, as hidden knowledge of structural problems could prevent injuries or deaths if addressed before proceeding.	A community member highlights that obtaining reasons from Person A is safety-critical: undisclosed knowledge of implementation vulnerabilities could prevent catastrophic governance failures if addressed before proceeding with on-chain implementation.	Undisclosed safety concerns create extreme risk; potential catastrophic failure that could have been prevented; lives saved through transparency	Establish mandatory safety disclosure requirements with clear distinction from general feedback
Harassment Shield (Very High, 75%)	Instead of explaining their concerns, Person A claims they're being harassed for their vote and refuses to provide reasons. They suggest that requesting explanations constitutes workplace harassment.	Person A who voted "Nay" claims that requests for explanation constitute harassment, suggesting that such inquiries would be inappropriate in professional environments.	Using harassment claims to avoid accountability creates dangerous precedent; legitimate governance inquiries become impossible; accountability mechanisms break down	Establish clear guidelines distinguishing between harassment and legitimate governance inquiries
Sudden Reversal (Very High, 80%)	Without explaining their previous concerns, Person A suddenly changes their position and says they're now willing to join with the proposed implementation.	Without explaining their previous "Nay" votes, Person A suddenly confirms they're willing to be included in the implementation.	Unexplained reversal suggests potential manipulation or pressure; undermines governance integrity; creates appearance of coercion	Require explanation for significant position changes, especially reversals
Hidden Knowledge (Extreme, 40%)	It's later revealed that Person A knew about serious problems with the implementation but didn't disclose this when voting "NO" or when suddenly changing to "YES"	Possibility emerges that Person A was aware of implementation flaws or vulnerabilities but didn't disclose them when voting "Nay" or when suddenly changing positions.	Deliberate withholding of critical safety information; potential catastrophic governance failures due to misunderstood critical information; inability to establish informed consent	Implement mandatory disclosure requirements for known issues with severe penalties for non-disclosure
Liability Creation (High, 65%)	The implementation proceeds with Person A included despite their initial "NO" vote. Later, problems cause significant harm. Those who knew about problems but didn't disclose them face liability for negligence.	The new governance structure launches including Person A who explicitly voted "Nay" in the second poll. Later, implementation problems cause governance failures. Those who knew about problems but didn't disclose them face accountability questions.	Including people against their expressed preferences creates liability; legal/reputational damage; loss of trust in governance system	Respect expressed preferences; don't include those who explicitly voted "Nay"
Plausible Deniability (High, 70%)	Person A claims they were pressured into joining and never really consented, despite their last-minute "YES". They argue they shouldn't be held accountable for problems they knew about but didn't disclose. They may even sue for damages as a "victim" despite being partially or fully responsible for the problems.	Person A later claims they were pressured or merely encouraged into participation and never truly consented, despite their confirmation after initially voting "Nay". They may reframe even mild encouragement as coercion and seek compensation as victims while escaping accountability for their own role in creating or concealing vulnerabilities.	Pattern creates perfect conditions for avoiding accountability and exploiting liability systems; inability to establish clear accountability; breakdown of trust; perverse incentives that reward bad actors	Document all communications; implement verification mechanisms; establish liability frameworks that prevent those with undisclosed knowledge from claiming victim status
Mischaracterization Tactics (Very High, 75%)	When questioned about their sudden reversal and lack of transparency, Person A employs multiple mischaracterization tactics: (1) Using emotionally charged language ("penalizing", "afraid", "atmosphere of fear") to frame accountability as persecution; (2) Falsely claiming that requests for reasoning are attacks on differing opinions; (3) Labeling governance concerns as "pointless discussions" rather than substantive issues; (4) Attributing negative motivations like "self-importance" to those seeking accountability; (5) Deliberately misquoting or abbreviating statements to change their meaning; (6) Claiming that transparency requirements create an "intimidating" environment.	When faced with legitimate requests for explanation about their voting pattern, Person A employs sophisticated mischaracterization tactics: (1) Using emotionally charged language to reframe accountability as persecution; (2) Falsely equating requests for reasoning with intolerance of diverse perspectives; (3) Dismissing governance concerns as "pointless discussions"; (4) Attributing negative motivations to those seeking accountability; (5) Misquoting or abbreviating statements to alter their meaning; (6) Claiming that transparency creates an "atmosphere of fear" that "inhibits participation"	Coordinated mischaracterization tactics can completely derail legitimate governance processes; governance paralysis; inability to address actual issues; community division; lowered standards for governance discussions	Maintain verbatim records of all communications; establish objective standards for governance inquiries; require specific examples when accusations are made; educate community on common rhetorical tactics that undermine governance
Deflection Patterns (High, 70%)	When pressed for specific examples of alleged negative behaviors, Person A changes the subject, makes vague accusations without evidence, or creates false equivalencies to avoid addressing the original governance concern.	When asked to provide specific examples of alleged negative behaviors, Person A employs deflection tactics such as changing the subject, making vague accusations without evidence, or creating false equivalencies to avoid addressing the original governance concern about consent and accountability.	Deflection prevents resolution of legitimate governance issues; unresolved governance concerns; erosion of accountability standards; wasted time and resources	Require specific examples when accusations are made; maintain focus on original governance concerns; document patterns of deflection
Communication Barriers (Very High, 65%)	Person A has difficulty understanding critical safety information due to language barriers but doesn't request translation assistance. When others suggest translation services might help, Person A claims this is discriminatory rather than acknowledging the communication gap.	A governance participant with decision-making authority has difficulty comprehending critical implementation details due to language barriers but doesn't seek clarification. When translation assistance is offered, they characterize this as discriminatory rather than as a necessary accommodation for informed governance.	Inability to verify comprehension of safety-critical information creates extreme risk; potential catastrophic governance failures due to misunderstood critical information; inability to establish informed consent	Implement multilingual governance resources; establish translation protocols; require verification of understanding for critical decisions; create culture where requesting language assistance is normalized and encouraged
Governance Failure (High, 60%)	The pub's reputation is severely damaged. Future initiatives fail due to lack of trust in the governance process. Related entities also suffer reputational damage by association.	Collective X's governance reputation is damaged, affecting both new and existing operations and undermining trust in the broader ecosystem.	Governance failures have cascading effects beyond immediate context; long-term damage to community trust; difficulty implementing future governance changes	Establish clear governance principles that prioritize consent, transparency, and accountability
Mitigation Through Verification (Low, 20%)	A new system is implemented requiring explicit verification of understanding before inclusion in any new initiative. Participants must demonstrate they understand what they're consenting to.	A community member proposes that the governing body (Collective Y, which provides the "final green light" for runtime upgrades) should implement a verification poll that: 1) verifies participants' understanding of what they voted for, 2) maintains that votes stand even if cast without understanding (establishing precedent for immutable on-chain voting), and 3) serves as an educational opportunity on the importance of seeking clarification before voting rather than after.	Verification creates clear record of informed consent while respecting vote finality; minor additional administrative overhead; slight delay in implementation	Benefits of verified consent far outweigh costs of administrative overhead
Technical Safeguards (Low, 15%)	The organization implements a digital system requiring explicit consent to each specific aspect of implementation before inclusion. No aspect can be overridden by others.	Development of technical solutions that require explicit "Yes" responses to all related polls as a prerequisite for inclusion, automating consent verification.	Technical enforcement removes human error and manipulation; initial development costs; learning curve for users	Creates sustainable, scalable solution that prevents future governance failures
Formalized Accountability (Low, 25%)	The organization establishes clear guidelines requiring transparent reasoning for "NO" votes on critical decisions and defining what constitutes legitimate inquiry versus unfair pressure.	Update of Collective X's governance documents to require reasoning for "Nay" votes and clearly define the difference between unfair pressure and legitimate governance inquiries.	Clear guidelines with penalties for non-compliance create deterrent effect, reducing need for pressure to obtain reasons; initial resistance from those who prefer opacity	Creates sustainable governance culture that values transparency and accountability

Risk Assessment Legend

Risk Level	Description
Low	Manageable risk with minimal potential for governance disruption
Medium	Notable risk requiring attention but unlikely to cause significant harm
High	Serious risk with potential for significant governance disruption
Very High	Critical risk with high likelihood of serious governance failure
Extreme	Existential risk that could lead to complete governance collapse

Note: If the table above is cropped then view it here Decentralized Governance Transition Risk Management Framework: A Parallel Storytelling Approach · GitHub instead

[ltfschoen]

Key Governance Risk Management Lessons

1. Formalized Guidelines Protect Communities: Clear governance requirements for transparency eliminate the false choice between ecosystem protection and harassment claims. Without such guidelines, community members face an impossible dilemma: either press for critical information and risk harassment claims, or avoid confrontation and risk catastrophic governance failures. Formalized guidelines with penalties for non-compliance shift responsibility to voters while protecting legitimate governance inquiries.

2. Consent Is Not Majority Rule: True consent requires explicit agreement to specific implementation details, not just general concepts. Verification mechanisms ensure participants understand what they're consenting to.

3. Transparency Is Not Harassment: Requests for reasoning behind critical votes are fundamental to accountability and distinct from harassment. Clear definitions prevent misuse of harassment claims to avoid accountability.

4. Knowledge Creates Responsibility: Awareness of potential problems creates responsibility to disclose. Hidden knowledge of vulnerabilities constitutes a governance risk that must be mitigated through mandatory disclosure requirements.

5. Verification Prevents Manipulation: Technical verification mechanisms prevent manipulation and ensure informed consent, reducing reliance on subjective interpretations of interactions.

6. Technical Enforcement Reduces Human Error: Implementing technical safeguards for consent verification removes the possibility of human error or manipulation, creating more reliable governance systems.

7. Formalized Accountability Prevents Misuse: Clear accountability frameworks prevent the misuse of harassment claims as shields against legitimate governance inquiries, while still protecting against actual harassment.

8. Mischaracterization Undermines Governance: Reframing legitimate governance inquiries as personal attacks creates false narratives that prevent proper accountability. Communities must establish objective standards for distinguishing between legitimate governance processes and inappropriate behavior. Common mischaracterization tactics include:

   • Using emotionally charged language to frame accountability as persecution
   • Falsely equating requests for reasoning with intolerance of diverse perspectives
   • Dismissing governance concerns as "pointless discussions" rather than substantive issues
   • Attributing negative motivations to those seeking accountability
   • Misquoting or abbreviating statements to alter their meaning
   • Claiming that transparency requirements create an "intimidating environment" that "inhibits participation"
   • Making vague accusations without providing specific examples
   • Creating false equivalencies to avoid addressing original governance concerns

9. Language Accessibility Is Safety-Critical: In global governance systems, language barriers can prevent full understanding of critical information. Offering translation assistance is not discrimination but a necessary accommodation to ensure informed consent and prevent governance failures. Communities must establish protocols that normalize requesting and providing language assistance while distinguishing between genuine communication needs and avoidance tactics.

Multilingual Governance Infrastructure Proposal

The global membership of decentralized communities represents diverse languages and cultures, which is a tremendous strength for the ecosystem. However, conducting governance exclusively in one language creates barriers to full participation and may lead to misunderstandings that compromise decision quality and legitimacy.

A comprehensive solution would establish a crowdsourced translation system funded by the community treasury as core governance infrastructure. All major proposals and polls would be made available in the native languages of members through incentivized community translators, with native speaker verification ensuring accuracy. This empowers every member to participate fully in governance decisions regardless of their primary language.

The system would include clear participation standards for all members, such that when comprehensive translations and resources are provided, all participants are expected to engage responsibly by using available materials, seeking clarification when needed prior to voting, or abstaining when uncertain. Those members who consistently claim confusion after voting, despite having access to translated materials and support resources, would be guided through additional training to ensure effective participation.

It is important that the implementation of such systems be handled with cultural sensitivity. Several complex scenarios can arise:

1. If participants have self-identified language barriers:

   • Communities should establish protocols that respect the agency of participants while ensuring critical information is understood
   • Avoid assumptions that disagreements stem from misunderstandings rather than legitimate differences in perspective
   • Recognize that participants who are not native speakers of the primary governance language may fully comprehend governance issues while still experiencing communication challenges when expressing their views in that language

2. If language barriers are suspected but not acknowledged:

   • Offer resources universally rather than singling out specific individuals, as targeted assistance may be mischaracterized as discriminatory despite being intended as supportive
   • Create an environment where requesting clarification or translation is normalized and not stigmatized
   • Distinguish between genuine communication barriers and tactical avoidance of accountability

3. If language barriers become intertwined with governance disagreements:

   • Vigilant about situations must be upheld where language barriers may be invoked to deflect from substantive governance concerns
   • Maintain focus on the governance principles at stake while still providing necessary communication support
   • Document communications clearly to prevent mischaracterization of positions due to language differences

The most effective approach is to make multilingual resources universally available to everyone by default, rather than reactively offering them to specific individuals after communication challenges arise. This systemic approach respects the dignity of all participants while still ensuring critical information is accessible.

Investing in multilingual accessibility transforms linguistic diversity into a collaborative advantage while maintaining high standards for informed participation. This treasury investment protects governance integrity while demonstrating commitment to genuine global inclusion and democratic excellence.

This risk management framework demonstrates how governance failures in seemingly simple processes can create significant risks, and how proper consent verification, transparency requirements, and accountability mechanisms can mitigate these risks.

Disclaimer

This document presents hypothetical scenarios for educational purposes only. Any resemblance to real organizations or situations is coincidental and used solely to illustrate abstract governance principles and risk management concepts. The framework is intended to help organizations identify and mitigate governance risks through structured analysis and is not intended as commentary on any specific governance process or individual. This is not legal advice, and organizations should consult with appropriate legal counsel regarding their specific governance practices. Due to forum character limits, this document entitled "Decentralized Governance Transition Risk Management Framework: A Parallel Storytelling Approach" may be posted in two parts so please ensure you read both parts for the complete framework.

[ltfschoen]

I’ve updated the post to incorporate flow charts to illustrate each of the governance risk scenarios here Decentralized Governance Transition Risk Management Framework: A Parallel Storytelling Approach · GitHub