FreeRossDAO – April 15th Community Call Transcript

by | Apr 15, 2022


0:00:00 – Start
0:15:30 – Name Change Survey
0:37:50 – Governance Proposal
0:59:00 – Treasury Discussion
1:02:00 – Wrapping Up


Schlomo:
Hello? How’s it going?

Dr. Bitcoin:
It helps if you unmute yourself, if you want to talk to the group.

Schlomo:
Yes. Happy Friday,

Dr. Bitcoin:
Indeed. Yes. Are you almost caught up from being in Miami last week? I am, almost.

Schlomo:
If I didn’t have to deal with a Seder tonight for like 16 people, I would be, but by the end of the weekend I’ll be caught up.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Oh, there you go.

Schlomo:
You know?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Hello, Nene.

Rene:
Nana here. How’s it going, everyone?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Great.

Schlomo:
Great. How are you?

Rene:
Good. I am going out of town to the weekend to a cabin in the woods. And you hear a screaming toddler in the background, that is why. If you me grunting, it’s because I’m lifting things and putting it in the car.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Perfect.

Schlomo:
Good morning to everybody, how y’all doing?

Rene:
Do we want to wait a minute or two more and then just get going?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yeah.

Schlomo:
Yeah. It looks like we’re still filling in. If anyone here part of the crew want to hop on the stage, just let us know. I need to find us some hold slash opening theme music like everybody else does these days, so it’s not dead quiet at the beginning.

Dr. Bitcoin:
We could just play the girl from Neman.

Rene:
On loop?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yeah.

Rene:
[inaudible 00:03:23]. There’s actually a bunch of Ross songs that sometimes we played at the letter writing thing, a surprising amount of music created a dedication to Ross, you know.

Schlomo:
Didn’t even think about that. I will jump into that channel and check them out. I’ve only really known that one song, the sea shanty song that your brother sings.

Schlomo:
Haha, yeah, that was good. But there has a lot of like Eastern European rappers and stuff talking about Ross, which is kind of interesting.

Rene:
That’s wild. Yeah. We should put together a playlist and I know that Ross’s favorite music is reggae, too. So I should like get a list of his favorite songs.

Schlomo:
Absolutely.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Well I think probably we could get started now if we wanted to-

Schlomo:
Let’s do it.

Rene:
Yeah, let’s go. I’m packed in the car and waiting for the rest of my family to get their shit together.

Schlomo:
In my head you are like the Griswalds, in the credit scene.

Rene:
Yeah, pretty much.

Schlomo:
Happy good Friday, [foreign language 00:04:52] to those who do Passover as well. All the big Western religions have are having a big day today.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yeah, that’s right.

Schlomo:
It’s Western religion Friday. And may you all enjoy it, as you see fit.

Rene:
What do you mean tax day? It’s also steal something from work day, too, by the way.

Schlomo:
I mean every day that ends with Y is that day to me? How else am I going to get new pencils, Post Its?

Rene:
Okay. I am settled. I can focus on you at least for the next 15 minutes undividedly. So, we got back from Miami, we survived Miami. It was-

Rene:
I feel like I gleaned from just meeting all of you.

Rene:
Glorious, amazing benefits. I really was pleasantly surprised, I enjoyed everyone. It really was fantastic to connect. So I think for me that was the biggest takeaway was just getting to become friends with you in person, and meeting new friends. I see Danny is here, really, really jazzed to have her part of the community. I see Eric Hamilton is here. Didn’t get to meet Eric in Miami, but looking forward to it. And yeah, I think we’ve all collected a lot of thoughts and some of us have shared them so far. So looking forward to recapping all of that stuff. Does anyone want to go first with what their digestion of the event was?

Schlomo:
I think if we want to lead with the exciting stuff, Schlomo, the work that you and Wes have been doing and the vision for that should we should probably lead with that, I think.

Schlomo:
Sounds good.

Dr. Bitcoin:
It was amazing to watch how people tied into the most basic version of displaying the animation that internally we wanted to do. Right? We literally gave the minimum viable situation to this animation, and watching and hearing stories about people, how they’re tying into the work when they put on the headphones was really good. As we sew in the weeds, it’s good to see other people tie into the artistic constructs that we’re thinking about doing in the world to help humanize Ross, bring the message to a better focus, and deal with prison reform. That’s what I really got, and me and Wes just got inspired from it. And there’s a lot of good artistic education that could be done by sitting and viewing this piece in the right context. And watching people get that before we could even really intentionalise that build was really inspiring for me. That’s one of my big takeaways. Minus the people and meeting the whole team of … Obviously, that was number one for me.

Schlomo:
Cool. Yeah. I’m super excited about seeing how that installation develops over time. I thought it was powerful just the way it was, and I think it can be way, way more powerful [inaudible 00:08:13].

Dr. Bitcoin:
We are lucky that we have people around helping us who are really good at what they do. That’s really what also inspires and what we could do with things just, because of the collective knowledge that we already have in this, also was really inspiring to see. It’s one thing to see a bunch of writings in a discord, it’s another thing to hear each other’s voices. And that was also hugely inspirational in terms of what we could do in the next quarter or two together. There was a lot of good work that I felt energy wise coming from the group.

Rene:
Yeah. One of the key moments for me was actually the DPR activation. I’d love to hear more from Buttercups. I know you did a great postmortem that I read yesterday, Buttercups. If you could give us a download on that, what worked, how would you do this better?

Buttercup:
Hello? Hello? [inaudible 00:09:14]. My connection might be breaking [inaudible 00:09:19].

Buttercup:
Hello? Hello? Can you hear me?

Schlomo:
I can hear you.

Buttercup:
I don’t have the best connection, so I’ll try to be brief. The only thing that was key takeaways, I totally agree with Schlomo, that the installation was a great win in terms of getting people to feel what was trying to play and to relay. I also think that the DPR is small in participation. I think that once we were there, it really created a very good momentum to get actual [inaudible 00:09:57] to unite in a moment and discuss about how they could join into the cause, and see how they could be helpful.

Buttercup:
Where I can dissect a little bit of the ideas of what I think went wrong and what I think went right, but all in all I think that was a positive experience. I think that having Jeremy and Jay, and just helping out during the week as pirates, and giving all the information out to people really helped to make us visible in the community. And I’m also very interested in hearing what you guys thought about it.

Schlomo:
Cool. Thanks. Yeah. Your internet connection is a little unstable, but I think I caught most of that. I bet everyone else did, too. Yeah, for me it was, it was really that moment at the end of the conference when we had like 20, 30 people dressed up as pirates, it felt really special. And my wish was having more moments where we could have Ross’ core supporters know that they can gather to do activations like that, or other things that are fun. And the other thing that I thought of is that Ross’s personality, when you met him, fun would be very high on the character quality list. You’d be like, oh, that’s a really fun guy. And I feel like we’d be missing the mark if, as a community, we don’t really embrace fun. And I think freedom is fun. And that’s the other thing that’s a big characteristic of Ross that I think should be of our [inaudible 00:11:40].

Schlomo:
So doing things dressed up as pirates is ridiculous, it makes you feel silly, but that’s kind of wonderful. So I’d love to see us do other things like that are just purely for fun, for getting the visibility out, but also just for building group solidarity and unity. So I was pleasantly surprised.

Buttercup:
Yeah. And I also think that one of the things that really struck with me when I was talking with Martha Bruno, was that she was saying that one of the things that the Dow is doing really well, both with the artwork and with the activation, was about bringing awareness to all this. So if we can use fun to bring awareness to this, and we can make it visible, I think that it’s a double win.

Schlomo:
Yeah. Triple win. And if being a part of the Dow looks like fun from the outside and actually is fun as well, I think we’ll attract more contributors. Right? So yeah, I think that should be one of the things we always keep an eye on, is are we having a good time? Is this work engaging and fun? Especially, because we’re all having to do this most of us on our day jobs. Not fun if it’s not pulling us in organically, because we like spending time with each other, and we like the work, then I think the quality of the work is going to suffer and the quantity will, and we just won’t have as many contributors. So I think that’s a good thing for us to always keep an open eye on.

Schlomo:
Cool. I’d love to hear from, let’s see, Risen, Dr. Bitcoin, what was your big takeaways?

Dr. Bitcoin:
A lot of what everybody else has already said is on my mind. So it sounds like we’re a lot on the same page. And there’s little things that you notice along the way that we could have done better or differently for the next time. And I think a lot of what we did this week was very educational. And despite the fact that there’s all types of small little things that we could have done better, we had an amazing showing and, we captured the flag on like the minimum viable product in terms of what we were aiming to raise for Ross, the minimum viable product of what we would like to see out of an activation out of interaction with the public at a large conference.

Dr. Bitcoin:
So I’m generally pleased with all this stuff. I think the biggest takeaway for me is the event provided a wholarity for what media company actually means for a Dow, with the goals, what we’re trying to accomplish. When we started this, we were not … Aimless is the wrong word, because we knew were what the overall mission was with regard to prison reform and Ross Holbrook, but we didn’t know exactly what our navigational path was going to be. And as we started laying down the foundation, we came to the conclusion of media company, and then … But that’s still a very broad term that means a lot of things. And being able to have some clarity on how a real world interaction with a piece of art can serve all of the bigger tent pole projects that we’ve been talking about for three or four months now. I just feel like I’ve got a lot of clarity around that. The mission and the path is a lot more clear for us to start navigating towards it.

Dr. Bitcoin:
That’s my big takeaway. That may sound vague, I don’t know if we want to get down in the weeds of all that, but that was to me, my big takeaway.

Schlomo:
Cool. Yeah, no, I think let’s hear from all the folks that were there and any insights, thoughts they wanted to share. I’d love to hear from Jeremy and Jess, and then let’s get into the weeds. Let’s really talk about the thornier things, the harder stuff that I feel like is needed for us to evolve and become the the powerhouse that I know we can. So Jeremy, Jess, either of you, if you have anything you want to share in terms of takeaways.

Jeremy:
Cool. I guess I’ll go first. How y’all doing? It’s been a pleasure this last week or two hanging with y’all in Miami. I’ve never been a part of an NFT drop, so I don’t really have too much to add in that regards. Although as I understand, we were the leading drop on Scarcity this week. Right? And I believe we … It went in all successes as far as like we delivered on what we said we were going to do. And like you all said, there were some ways we could tweak it, but really I’m just more confident that moving forward as a team, as our ability to hit and run at these type of events. The pirate thing was excellent. If we want to keep that as a running theme, that would be like a traveling Troubadour’s crew, you know what I mean? Like we pop up here and there, so that’d be cool.

Jeremy:
I like the whole business model thing that you’re y’all talking about either. I hate those words. I’m curious. I don’t have too much time to get too involved in some of the organizational stuff, but I’m curious to see how folks could plug in. I took a brief look at the notion and the bounty stuff. So it does look like there are some good directions to move forward in that regard. I know you said you were going to talk a little bit about the weeds. I still have a lot of printing stuff. So I know that I’ve been talking to you, Dr. Bitcoin, about maybe ways that we could distribute that, like via mail, maybe some type of ordering system or membership chapter based volunteer thing. We will work on all that, but I’m in a position to where I could deliver on the mail stuff, the remaining posters at the very least, right?

Jeremy:
But other than that, I’m going to be busy over the next couple weeks, but I’m still here and listening and still looking for ways that I could plug in.

Rene:
Awesome. Well, I have to say it was an absolute pleasure getting to know you and your brother. I love that you give us perspective and insight from someone who’s actually done some serious time and you hung out with Ross in prison and it was great having you in the mix. You were positive and you really embraced the pirate DPR thing in such a lovely way. So just big hug to you and your brother for showing up. Really, really appreciate it. And I love the idea of mailing Railroaded, the book, the flip book, posters, all that great media that you did. I think we should make that very, very accessible and free to the community members that, you know, really are engaged and care about it. I know I’m going to cherish that stuff. It’s really fun to have those physical takeaways and yeah, means something to me, so I’m sure it’ll mean stuff to other folks.

Rene:
Let’s transition to talking about, or at least setting the agenda for the things that I feel like are the biggest stuff from my perspective, and other folks can add things to the agenda that they feel like are really important. But for me, I think it would be good to have a discussion around potential name change. First, do we actually need to do it? What are the reasons for why we should consider doing a name change? And if so, I would also love to see if there’s any clarity on top picks from that poll we sent out internally for name changes. So I’d love to talk about the name change thing.

Rene:
I’d love to talk about updating the governance process to make the way that proposals are generated much more accessible to anyone in the community, and much clearer about what a proposal needs to have. And so I’d love to talk about that. I felt like there was three, but guess those are the two that I care most about. Anybody else have anything they want to add to the agenda?

Rene:
Okay. Dr. Bitcoin, can you pull up the results of the survey?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yes, I’m pulling that up now. Give me just a minute. Give me about like two minutes actually.

Rene:
Okay. While you’re pulling that up, I will … Well, I’m now pulling up directions to get the fuck out of town since our car is finally packed. Hurray! That’s my wife in the background and you’ll probably hear my kiddo. Actually, you won’t hear my kiddo, because we’re letting him watch TV and he’s going to become a zombie now.

Rene:
So to give a quick overview of why I think we should give serious consideration to a name change. First, when we were at the conference, I noticed a lot of brand confusion between the free Ross Dow and Ross’ family’s organization Free Ross. So I’d be talking to somebody and that would also be like true with the literature that we handed out. There would be like go to freeross.org, or go to freerossdow.org. And what’s the difference? And I realized that there was some challenges there, and that felt a little suboptimal. And I think it would be good if there was stronger clarity between the two organizations across the board, not only from the URL and naming and branding perspective, but also perspective. And there has been …

Rene:
And lobbyists, and I think our needs to be focused on changing public opinion about who Ross is. So I think there’s a really great distinction between the organizations, and I think that should be reflected in our branding.

Rene:
Okay, the other issue and reason that I think a name change could be really good is if we … Sorry, I got distracted for a second. The other issue is around governance. So when the Dow was created, initially, it happened really fast, there wasn’t the best lines of communication between Ross and his family. And he had some really valid … Ross had some really valid concerns around having the Dow be named after him. And at the time that felt really important that we find a way to make it named after him, because that’s what pleaser Dow had been advertising it as. And it felt like a switcheroo on the community at a time when things were already kind of fragile.

Rene:
And just to clarify what his concerns were, Ross’s concerns and his family’s concerns, and [inaudible 00:21:56] is that a Dow, if you’re doing it right, is not really led or controlled by anyone, it’s controlled by the community. And what if as a community, we decide to do something that inadvertently causes harm to Ross, his image, whatever. If it’s under his name, then that is a totally different thing than if it’s named something else. If we do something that’s politically con controversial, then that poses a bigger risk for him if the organization’s named after him.

Rene:
So that was their concern. And our solution was to create an advisory council, which is consists of four people Ross trusts, and every proposal has to go through them before it goes to snapshot. And their job is to just review to see if it could potentially cause him harm.

Rene:
And that was a fine solution. And it’s actually worked fairly well. Every proposal that we’ve tried to get through, we’ve been able to get through so far. My issues with the advisory council is one, is it does slow the process down a bit. I don’t think that’s an insurmountable thing, but the other issue around having the advisory council as it exists right now is that there’s not really great mechanisms for us to have people leave or added to the advisory council. And it seems like it’s a potential failure point. Let’s say at some point we get into a situation where at least two of the people on the advisory council, for whatever reason, decide they hate the Dow and want to shut it down and don’t want to have anything moving through governance. Well, right now they can kind of do that.

Rene:
Two of them can just decide that and then they could just veto everything that goes through. And there’s no mechanism right now in the governance system for addressing that, that situation, we can’t elect new members … It feels fragile. And I want this to be a resilient organization, because I see a lot of chaos and challenges, from a macro geopolitical standpoint. There’s just a lot of reasons that we want to be as resilient as possible. And so if we get back to thinking about a name change, if we change the name of the Dow to something that’s not Free Ross, but something else, that gives us more latitude to modify and adjust the advisory council. And to be clear, I think we should keep the advisory council.

Rene:
I just think we need to be flexible enough to really through those failure points, and to find ways around them. So that those are all the points I wanted to make around why I think it’s worthwhile. I could be wrong. We could just keep it free Ross Dow and just, and that’s just what it is. And maybe that is the best thing to do, but those are all the concerns that I unsurfaced in my own brain at Miami. And so I think, yeah, I would love to be around do we have consensus around a name, change being good or not? And then if we do have consensus that a name change is good, let’s think of what those potential new names might be. Does that sound good?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yeah.

Rene:
That was, long-winded sorry, guys. I just wanted to lay it out as clear away as that possibly could.

Dr. Bitcoin:
That’s a great way to set it up. And we had a brief chat right on your way to the airport about a lot of what you said. And I agree with everything you’re saying behind the reasons for a name change. I think all those things are important governance issues that do need to be addressed. And there’s been other organizations that I’ve consulted on helping with their [inaudible 00:25:45] and those are the types of things that they bring up and they’ve tried to address as well. So I think it’s something smart for us to address.

Dr. Bitcoin:
I don’t think necessarily a name change is required to make those, address all those underlying governance problems. And the concern that I have is that there is nine years of brand equity with Free Ross Dow, because we bank on that name, because of the ongoing work with Lynn and the family and whatnot that we will not have if we change our name. As Jeremy can probably tell you, there’s dozens of prison reform organizations out there. And before Jeremy started listing them off for me, I probably couldn’t … Maybe the name of one or two of them. And so my fear is that if we go with a name change, we’re going to just dissolve into the background and it will make a lot of our work uphill.

Rene:
I think that is a completely valid concern. So let’s put that in the column of to not change the name, is that we lose all that brand equity. And I do agree with the point that you Bitcoin around the governance stuff being surmountable. I think we have started to build trust with the members of the advisory council. And I think if we wanted to make reasonable changes to governance to address those structural fragility issues that I mentioned, I think they’d be open to it. So I think we can get around that. So there’s two points then that we need to either just accept or address. One is brand confusion around freeross.org and freerossdow.org. So talking about, is that about concern? How important is it? And is there ways to get around it? And the other one is around potentially causing harm to Ross.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Right.

Rene:
And so by us doing something that’s … We can be bolder and move faster if we have a different name, I feel, then if we stay with Free Ross, because if something goes sideways it’s going to impact him a lot more if the organization is named after him. So would love to hear anybody’s thoughts on brand confusion and the pros and cons of being able to move faster, be bolder, or more careful if we keep the name.

David:
Hey, yeah, I just want to jump in. I actually have to jump off in like three minutes, I have a work call. But first off, thanks for all the work everybody has done and everything that happened, but I did want to jump in and I definitely feel like changing the name. For me, it’s about Ross. And if it just becomes, I saw the other things like Freedom Down, I don’t know what that means. I think just having Ross’s name in there is critically important to … He’s the lightning rod of why Bitcoiners are interested in this, why freedom people are into this. Changing the name, I think, just exactly like Dr. Bitcoin said, would … You lose a lot of the momentum.

David:
I do understand there’s a little bit of confusion between the two organizations. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I mean, if Lynn felt like that, was like, hey, that’s a problem, and she wasn’t happy, maybe. For me, I’m like, well, that’s kind of good for us. And I think the advisory council idea, I guess I wouldn’t worry about it until it becomes a problem. Like you said, they haven’t blocked anything, if they do, if they start blocking things, okay, we can deal with that. And I think it sounds like we just need a mechanism to pass a new proposal that says here’s the path of adding new people. And I feel like what we really want to be doing is working more and more with them, because we’re funding them. We’ve given them 6.6 million dollars, I think, at this point.

Rene:
Yeah, totally.

David:
So yeah, I think we’re extremely beneficial for them and they’re extremely beneficial for us.

David:
I feel like what we want to do is work as closely as we can with them, and don’t do things that are going to get them blocked. If they’re like, hey, this is going to … They’re going to block things, then we just shouldn’t be doing those things. Unless it becomes antagonistic and for whatever reason Lynn thinks we’re a terrible organization. But as far as I know, that’s not happening, and it’s the opposite of that.

Rene:
Totally.

David:
I feel pretty strongly that keeping his name in there … And if we needed to change it, I just looked up some synonyms for Free … Something like, what did I find? Like Liberate Ross Dow, or Release Ross Dow or Discharge … I guess I wouldn’t remove his name from there, unless and until it becomes a really antagonistic problem where things aren’t getting passed, but that doesn’t seem to be the case right now.

Rene:
Okay. Yeah, totally, totally.

David:
So, yeah.

Rene:
That’s a super valid perspective. Again, I had a call yesterday just to get to know him more, because he was one of the people bidding on Ross’s art competitively. And I was like, oh man, I need to get to know this dude. Super, super supportive of Ross, super talented developer, just really grateful to have you in the community. Great energy … Finding more people like you is just going to make this so much better for everybody. Okay.

David:
Thanks.

Rene:
Hear you loud and cleared about [inaudible 00:31:01]. You feel like it’s super important to keep Ross in the name. For me, I always felt like free was super important. And so I want to hear from more people about where they stand on do we change the name or not. The other things that you mentioned that I want to just comment on real quick is around the advisory council and making them more engaged and more part of it.

Rene:
I completely agree with that. And just to be crystal clear, I do not think that they’ve been adversarial at all. I think for the most part, they’ve been really constructive and open. It’s me just thinking down the road. I know this is morbid, but for me, I fully expect this to be a long journey. I also fully expect that Ross will not serve his full sentence and that he will make it out of prison alive, not in a body bag. But my time horizon is like 10 year time horizon, and to be totally realistic, Lynn is in her seventies, and there’s a chance that she could die and she is the head of that organization. And so I just want to make sure that we address those kind of structural issues with the advisory council. But as I said before, I think we can do that without changing the name.

Rene:
So, cool. I would love to hear anybody else’s thoughts should we change the name? And how do we address those concerns I had? Are they even valid concerns?

Buttercup:
On my part, I think that there is different issues at question. On one side, whether the change of name was about trying to get more latitude, if we wanted to do other actions that have to do with criminal justice reform, but isn’t necessarily tied to Ross. I think it’s a different question to change the actual name of the Dow when we are doing stuff that to do with him, which I don’t think we should, because I think that either through the structure or what Dr. Bitcoin was saying, of doing it through a sub Dow is still in the end, the mission that has brought most of us to the table. But it’s about choosing whether there are other courses of action of other kind of things that we think could be through sister Dow.

Rene:
Okay. So just to summarize, I find it’s easier for me to make sure I understood the points, just to say it back to you. So you think keep the name Free Ross Dow, unless we put real time and energy and money and resources behind doing their activation that’s clearly outside of just working on Ross. Is that right? I’ll assume that’s right. If I don’t hear from Buttercups.

Buttercup:
Yep.

Rene:
Cool, cool.

Buttercup:
Yep.

Rene:
Yeah, I think that’s a valid perspective. For me, doing the sub Dow route I think is fine and good, but I don’t want to spread our time, focus and energy on anything other than one central main thing for a while. We need to be doing something that’s really clearly working, firing on all cylinders before I think we would want to dilute with a sub Dow and a separate brand. That’s my perspective on that.

Rene:
Anybody else want to jump in? I’d love to hear from anyone about the idea of this name change, if you’re for it, or if you’re against it, you want to keep it the same. Or if you think that concerns are big enough to warrant. So far, it seems like most people are saying keep the name. Please, Ray, you want to speak? I’m driving, so I can’t nominate you, but someone else will.

Dr. Bitcoin:
I do have the poll results. Oh, Jeremy, why don’t you go first?

Jeremy:
Okay. So everybody already said a lot of good points. Renee, I completely agree that there has been kind of a confusion as far as the separation between Lynn’s organization and our organization. And then there’s a lot of advantages. Why there should be a separation, even though we work closely with them. And I think so far it has been well. As far as the name changed, I kind of do agree that we do lose a lot of our, our branding and our North Pole. And I feel like we are capable of doing a lot of different projects, not all exclusively related to Ross. But I think if we move away from Ross we lose momentum. There’s reasons why we are able to do some things that Lynn’s group is not able to do. So there’s that.

Jeremy:
But I really do think that this could burgeon a movement specifically around Ross that I think would increase our chances of getting him out, if we do really hit the Ross stuff. Now, I’m also very much interested in some of the other projects that we’re talking about. And maybe this could be a reason why we would want to either do a sub Dow or a name change, because … Now there’s obviously clear connections between say some of the updates and criminal justice reform, stuff like that, the laws … And I would like to focus on that aspect. And even though there might not be a clear connection to Ross’s case, I think that there actually is. But there could be a problem, perhaps, if down the line, if we do decide to stay completely connected with the advisory council on land, and we still keep the Free Ross Dow identity, but we also take on other campaigns, for example.

Jeremy:
Let’s say that there’s some type of big campaign against solitary confinement, which might emerge as a demonstration in New York or something like that we might want to participate in. It would just be like a picket rail or some shit like the governor’s office, or just, just hypothetically speaking. But if we were to do something like that and then as Free Ross Dow, and then there’s just not as clear of a connection, even though there is, because Ross has spent quite a bit of time in solitary and the stuff that Ross is going through affects everybody. But maybe there could be … Invite some criticism, like, depending on is this the type of thing we could be doing, maybe if we do want to be doing that, maybe we should be [inaudible 00:36:42] identity or a different name or a different sub Dow or however the case may be.

Jeremy:
I’m not really opinionated about the name change one way or the other, if you think about it. If we do do a name change, I did have another thing that we use type of the FTP type of theme, like Free the People Dow or Fight the Power Dow. There’s a lot of permutations with the FTP that’s ambiguous. There’s a few obvious ones that I haven’t mentioned, but the ambiguity could be playful, but …

Rene:
Hmm. I do like that as a suggestion. Free the People, actually, is pretty dope. That has my … I mean, it looks like most people are feeling like we should keep the name. So I’ll have Jeremy down as … My vibe from what you just said is that you’re leaning toward keeping the name, but you also don’t feel super strong about it one way or the other.

Jeremy:
I do think in general we should keep the name, but we should maybe clarify the differences. But I’m either way down for either way, whatever you want to decide.

Rene:
Cool, cool. So how about we do this, with the other people that want to speak, does anyone feel strongly that we should change the name? Does anyone want to make that point? Because it seems like we’re getting to consensus that most people feel like we should keep the name, and if that’s the case, I definitely do not feel strongly enough about the name change to push it and make it a point, if we have basically a complete consensus that we should keep it. Because I’m also not a hundred percent sure that was the right thing. I just had those concerns. So anybody want to fight for, or advocate for changing the name. We can move on?

Schlomo:
Wait, could we hear Dr. Bitcoin, did you say that you had a poll? I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt, Buttercup, but there was a poll, is that correct?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yeah, there was a little informal poll of the core team and I put it in our discord in our Telegram to get as much feedback from a wide variety of folks as possible. And we had a brainstorming session where a bunch of people came up with 20 or so names. [inaudible 00:38:40].

Rene:
Yeah, I’d be happy to get the poll results, but before we go down that path, I think it would be maybe useful to just hear if anybody feels like we should … Anyone wants to advocate for that name change, because otherwise it’s just … It’s interesting to see.

Buttercup:
For me, the thing that has to do as well with the name change has to do with the timeframe. Because in the end, if this is about Free Ross and then once Ross is free in the same way that you are logging [inaudible 00:39:07] until he is freed, it can be a statement of being Free Ross until he is free and then turning into something else.

Dr. Bitcoin:
That’s a solid point.

David:
There’s a clear victory condition, too.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Right.

Rene:
Okay. Well, it looks like nobody wants to [inaudible 00:39:32] for the name change. So just for fun, let’s see what the top picks were, maybe that’ll convince somebody that we should change the name, because I love the new name so much.

Dr. Bitcoin:
I’m going to give the top six, because there was a lot of ones that had one, a single vote, but most of the major vote distribution came up in the top six here. So the sixth most popular one was Schlomo Bird Dow, that was kind of the joke one, unless you were taking that seriously, Schlomo.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Free Spirit-

Schlomo:
I didn’t even put it up.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Free Spirits Dow was the first serious contender in the top six there. Free Dow, which is a cool sounding name, but there’s also existing Free Dow. The number three and the number one results are basically the same with one letter changed, Freezer Dow, kind of a play on Pleaser Dow. And then the number two was Free Form Dow, which kind of a play on free and reform.

Schlomo:
And the drum roll is …

Dr. Bitcoin:
The drum rolls are Dow, it was by far ahead, it was way more votes than any other idea. It had a combined total of 10 votes. Everything else was six or less votes.

Rene:
Interesting. Well, I’m so glad we are not Freezer Dow, because I hate it.

David:
It’s just so good to still get names where you take out vowels. Right?

Rene:
No, no, it’s fun, too, because it plays on Pleaser Dow. I totally get it. It’s quite lovely. Okay, so it looks like everyone feels like we should just keep Free Ross Dow. So let’s just move on. And yeah, the other things that I wanted to talk about was governance. That was really important for me to get a better process for these proposals to come from the community and that would be just more effective.

Rene:
So does anyone else have anything they want to add to the agenda besides talking about that? Okie doke. So I don’t actually have my … Is there anybody that could ping the Telegram group with the link to the Google doc that I drafted? I’d love to pull that up and use that as a reference for guiding the conversation. I think it’s somewhere in that thread. I just, since I’m in a car, ah, thank you, honey.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Just reply to it.

Rene:
Awesome, awesome. I’ll pull that up. Cool, cool. All right, so I can skip that. So the basic thoughts for governance that I wanted to address is that we have a tighter set of guidelines and structure for proposals. And I think some of the bits that I would love to see as a requirement on all proposals are mission alignment. I think we should force each person who’s drafting a proposal to clearly articulate how this proposal furthers the Dow’s mission, or some pillar of the Dow’s mission. Because we have a couple of different things, freeing Ross, criminal justice reform and promoting freedom in a really broad sense. So I think that’s important that we should include that. I think we should make each author specify what their success metric is. They should have one measurable metric and they define what success or failure looks like ahead of time.

Rene:
And the reason is I think it’s really important to be able to have something that’s objective that we can all look at dispassionately after a proposal is concluded and say, hey, did this hit the mark or not? So I think stating what that is ahead of time is really important. So an example would be, if you’re doing an activation where the primary metric is number of people who’ve engaged with something on Twitter, like a hashtag or something. And maybe the success metric is we want a thousand people to use this hashtag in this timeframe, and anything above is extra awesome, and anything below that threshold would be considered not meeting the mark, it would be a failure.

Rene:
And we should all embrace failure, failure’s fine. But I think it’s just really important to be clear about what that looks like a ahead of time.

Rene:
So that’s one thing that I feel strongly about. I think another requirement for proposals is that they should hundred percent have a fixed budget. And I think that they should all have a sunset date or a specific duration where they conclude. And this has a couple of implications, like a fixed budget and duration. That obviously makes a lot of sense in the context of projects. If we’re doing an activation at Miami, obviously we would want to know what the total budget is and we’d want to know when does this activation end? So maybe a week or two after the actual event ends, it would be wrapped and it would be concluded. And we could do a postmortem and proper report on whether or not that proposal met its success metrics or not.

Rene:
It’s less clear, but I think just as important, if not more important though, that this requirement also applies to things that feel more like a hire. So if we’re wanting to hire somebody to manage our social media or even the positions we already have, like our uni as a Dow treasury lead and Dr. Bitcoin as the media pod lead, these had been in, I think proposal number three or whichever one, it was that we passed it. Those looked like salaried positions. And I feel strongly that now that I’ve thought about it and not because of any lack of performance, but just thinking about how to have this be something that doesn’t have bureaucratic creep.

Rene:
So a big, big concern that I have just knowing a bit about the nonprofit world and coming from the startup world is I really have concern, not right now, but that structurally we could be wasting a lot of time and energy and money if we [inaudible 00:46:26] proposal have a sunset date.

Rene:
So if we’re wanting to hire somebody that feels like a, what would normally be a salary position, I think let’s just say we want to hire this specific person, but we want the duration of this hire to be three months or six months or 12 months, we just have to [inaudible 00:46:42] it is. And if that person’s doing a great job and there’s still clearly that need, then the community will vote another proposal before that current term is up, essentially.

Rene:
So basically all proposals have a sunset date and die. Okay, the other thought that I had, I mean maybe actually, maybe I should rather than go through each one of these, well, shit, I’m almost done. Let me just make a couple more points and then we should actually talk about these and debate them and see if anybody thinks they’re a good idea.

Rene:
The other thing is, I think in addition to a budget for actually doing the work and that budget would be paid out to folks via E-U-S-D-C or Bitcoin, I think we should also have the author of proposal specify how much free rewards they want. And this is kind of like, if you’re thinking about in startup land, it’s your salary and equity. I think the budget that you’re asking for, for a proposal should not be paid out and free, I think it should be paid out in things that work more like a currency. And then I think you also want to have the teams that are behind these proposals being rewarded with free tokens. And that gives them, of course, voting power for future proposals and makes them a bigger stakeholder in the Dow.

Rene:
And I think there’s, I don’t have my mind wrapped around the best way to do this, but I think what we’d want to do is have the authors just specify the amount of free rewards that there’s reasonable, that they’d want. And then I think we would want to tie, I think I could be wrong, but I think we’d want to tie whether or not that free was rewarded based on whether or not the proposal hit the success metric. So it’s an incentive and added incentive to make sure that if you’re … That your proposal hits whatever target you’re trying to aim at. Initially, I thought that we should maybe just set a percentage that the free reward would be tied to the budget, but then that would be incentivizing people just to put in larger budgets. It seems like there’s some game theory stuff that would not play out particularly well if we just tied it as a fixed percentage of the budget.

Rene:
So I think the right way is to just have the author specify the amount, but I don’t know. That part feels a little messy and wishy washy.

Rene:
I think last, last bits. I think obviously we would want them to specify the wallet address that the funds would be dispersed to as well as the free rewards. I think you want to specify the authors, where to do that. We have many authors. Here’s the last little substantive bit. I think each proposal needs to have one lead. They are the person who’s ultimately going to be responsible for the success or failure of a proposal. This is like the buck stops here with this person. They’re the benevolent dictator for this proposal. And I feel pretty strongly that each proposal should have a single lead, even if … And that lead would be then responsible for hiring either people from the Dow or external, and making sure that they take whatever budget was allocated for that proposal and using it wisely, and making sure that they run that whole project themselves, with other people, but they’re the clear lead on it.

Rene:
Okay. I’m going to shut up now. Those are all my thoughts. These are things, for the most part, I feel pretty strongly about and good about, but as always, really want to hear everyone’s thoughts and what did I miss? What else should be like something that every proposal has?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Buttercup, you look like you were reaching for the talking cassette. You had your hand up.

Buttercup:
You’re fun. I have the cassette. Yeah, no, actually, I agree with a lot of the stuff that Renee said. In my post mortem I talked a little bit at length about proposals as well. I think it’s … What I think could be essential is that in the way that we structure these proposals, to make sure that there is a defined time in which you’re going to be getting sir, of whether your proposal passes or not. And right now, since we have the going through the advisory council, maybe some proposals linger longer than others. And I feel like the community benefits, if we manage to try to give a timeframe of when you can expect to get your proposals, or if not a timeframe like a okay proposals are reviewed twice a month, or whatever. I do know that we to be agile, but is just-

Rene:
I love that.

Danielle:
I’d love to add to that, if that’s cool. I’ll also introduce myself. This is my first time speaking on one of the community calls. My name’s Danielle. I have experience, I worked at Shapeshift for six years and helped them transfer into a Dow. And I think one of the biggest things that we did right, in setting up the Dow was having these really well defined headings for proposals, because then each proposal kind of has this uniformity to it. It’s really easy to weigh them against each other.

Danielle:
Also with Buttercup about the timeline. It should have a really clear, defined process and that helps people to be successful. And so from my experience, having a forum discourse sounds like you guys already have one, but having that be this place where discussion happens, making a timeframe, like it needs to be in the discourse for five days, say, and there should be a poll on each of the discourse, draft proposals.

Danielle:
And if it gets generally good sentiment, it can move on to that next phase. I also would like having the advisory council give their feedback right there as well. Just so everything’s in one place, everything’s super transparent and just clear. I’ve given a talk at east Denver, and I think if I had a catch phrase, it would be decentralization is not the absence of organization. And I think that just making that proposal template really clear, like you said, the timeframe putting some polls in place, so people know where they stand. And then, pushing it forward to the snapshot version. And then maybe even requiring a timeline like, hey, this needs to be on snapshot for five days, or three days, whatever it might be.

Danielle:
So, yeah. And I think what I’ll say just to wrap up is I really would love to find ways that I can provide value to the free Ross Dow. And I think, my mind, I’m just a very organized person and I do have experience with this exact process. So I’d love to proposal together and take what you’ve already started, Renee, and just add some of those other ideas and then present that to you guys next week. So, yeah. That’s-

Rene:
Awesome.

Danielle:
Hi guys.

Rene:
Welcome Danny.

Dr. Bitcoin:
One of the things that I think that might help in the delay and the clarity is perhaps determining the threshold of proposal that does or does not need to go to the advisory council. For instance, the proposal that Buttercup wrote up that we wound up doing, we kind of discussed it internally and basically said, look, this is something that we should just be doing, doesn’t necessarily need advisory council purview, but it would be still fun and good and bring in community engagement if that type of proposal was on the snapshot and did get voted on by the community, because it’s a way to publicize that we’re doing something and get wider attention and eyes to it.

Dr. Bitcoin:
One of this, we’re talking about reforming our governance model moving forward is just maybe determining a threshold of what needs to be seen by the advisory council versus what can just be direct democracy.

Rene:
Yeah. Dig it, dig it. And thank you, Danny, and again, super, super excited to have you part of the community. I’m really over the moon happy about it. Yeah, so we need to define what that process is. Something that came out of what I heard from Danny was a course. So people, the processes, they put the proposal there on discourse. If they get a certain amount of up votes from the community, that kicks it into the next phase. And I think this is what, what you’re just saying, Dr. Bitcoin, about what is that next phase? Does it always go to the advisory council or can it be more of a direct democracy? How do we make that determination? And also, I think part of that is do … What is the validation?

Rene:
I think there’s two things that we need to have actual humans, or maybe some elected group determine is, did the proposal meet all of the requirements that we stipulate? So those things like, did it have a budget of a fixed duration? All of that stuff is … We need somebody that makes that call. And then the other call that we could potentially make is does this need to go to the advisory council or not? So I’d love any idea how we make that determination and what that process should be.

Danielle:
In my experience, it’s been the one person or two people playing that role. And I think that’s a good way to start with a small community. Someone is the proposal person that’s just checking that checklist. But then eventually I would see a committee almost, which is kind of funny, because you have the advisory council and then another council. But yeah, it would be good to get quality proposals and give people that feedback. And so having someone, where it’s their dedicated job to do that, I think, is important.

Dr. Bitcoin:
That could just be an ops lead position, right? And the council that makes the determination could easily just be the core team, [inaudible 00:57:33] the various ops pod leaders, or various pod leaders.

Rene:
What do you all think about pulling in the multi signers? Because that’s the other power center right now, is that we’ve got, I think, eight people, maybe 10 people on the multi signer [inaudible 00:57:52] safe. And I think on the general topic of governance, I think we need a way to add and remove people from that multi signer group. It’s a very low participation rate right now. And that’s actually an issue for getting things to sign. I’m always having to herd cats to get signatures there.

Rene:
So I’m wondering maybe we maybe the multi signers, a reconstituted version of that, a more engaged, responsive version of the multi designers are the ones that review those proposals and make the determination of if that proposal met all the eligibility requirements, and if we need to then kick it over to the advisory council, if it touches on something related to Ross, or if it doesn’t, they can just put it right on to snapshot. Thoughts about that?

Dr. Bitcoin:
It sounds good if we can get them involved in that way. I mean, it’s as good a committee as any.

Rene:
Anybody else have thoughts about that? And I think, I do think we need to have some minimum bar of engagement, and I think we need at least a couple … Because right now to be totally Frank it’s me, it’s unicorn droppings and it’s my buddy Elliot and one person from Pleaser Dow, Matt. They’re the ones that sign like 90% of everything. And A, it’s kind of hard to get us all in the room at the same time. And B, I think we need to increase the threshold for actually getting things signed from a security perspective. So, anybody have any thoughts about how we should go about adding and removing people from that multi signer group?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Well, I like that the fact that some of those people on the multi signer group, their names are associated with our project, but that’s a security problem if they’re not engaged at all, and we have to get stuff done. So we create like a little retirement village for them and call it an advisor’s board or something and transition them in that direction.

Rene:
Yeah. Because I think from a marketing perspective and a support perspective, the value we get from those multi signers is saying that they’re the founding group, and that never goes away. They’re the founders of the Dow. Those people were the ones that really had happened in the very, very beginning. And I think we can always talk about it in that context and have like that good brand association that we get. But I do feel like we should probably only have people that are actively engaged and are reliably there to sign things on the multi signer safe. Everyone agree with that?

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yes.

Rene:
Cool. So what is the process then for electing people? I guess through governance proposals, we’ll just have to do a proposal to remove certain people and add certain people and change the threshold.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Yeah. Maybe we want to try to have a conversation with them privately to let them know, hey, this is what we’re thinking. Just so it doesn’t look-

Rene:
Oh, a hundred percent, a hundred percent.

Dr. Bitcoin:
So it doesn’t look like some sort of coup or something, but yeah for sure.

Rene:
Totally, totally. And I think a lot of those people, I think some of them will still stick around, and maybe all of them, maybe it’s just having … Maybe we need 15 people on the list and increase the threshold signing to six or something.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Right.

Rene:
We just need … Yeah, definitely a hundred percent think we should talk to them about it and get their buy in and see who wants to stick around and who doesn’t.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Right. You either end up-

Buttercup:
[inaudible 01:01:28] Yeah, it might not really have to do with the signing, but I do think that in general, one of the topics that was spoken about while we were in Miami as well, is that there is an idea of wanting to become more [inaudible 01:01:50] in terms of voting power, having more tokens distributed. So I don’t know exactly how we go about it, but I’m guessing that the whole governance structure and how we set up proposals and how we set the free incentives goes [inaudible 01:02:04] of trying to progressively decentralize the voting power.

Rene:
Yeah, I totally agree. Because I think for governance to be healthy, obviously, we need it to be widely distributed and the core contributors need to have really big voices because they’re obviously super engaged and it matters to them and they’ve got the best inside knowledge about what’s happening. And I do think the best way to do that is through generously [inaudible 01:02:34] successful proposals with free, and through bounties and through, whenever we’re doing an activation, being pretty liberal with giving free out and pulling people in and empowering them and giving them a voice.

Rene:
Danny, I think had some ideas, I spoke with her yesterday. I don’t know if she wants to jump in about ideas for how do we get the token more equitably distributed, buyback programs and you know, redistributing that to people who are delivering real value.

Danielle:
I think I want to learn a little bit more about what’s already been done with you guys, but yeah, I have worked with the … I set up the treasury management and diversification committee and in my tenure at Shapeshift also helped them manage their a hundred million dollar Crypto. But yeah, I think diversification is a really good key thing. We found that to be really helpful with us, like being able to pay people in stablecoins, when necessary and just, not relying on a full treasury all of the same token.

Danielle:
And yeah, I think, another thing that was really successful for us was the use of Sablier contracts when paying people so that they’re earning block by block, and not just getting a full payout and keeping people interested for a longer term.

Danielle:
But yeah, I’m interested to hear what the treasury management has already been thinking about. Oh, and yeah, my feedback would just be, I went to buy free and it’s going to take me many, many days to get the amount that I wanted. So I was just curious if you guys were thinking about doing another sale or trying to find more crypto wills that want larger amounts. And selling directly and diversifying the treasury that way. So those were my initial ideas, but yeah, I’m interested in meeting with more of you guys and learning more before I just suggest a bunch of stuff.

Dr. Bitcoin:
So Uni had a really great suggestion that we just didn’t have time to market it as well as I would’ve liked. But the way that we raised money with governance proposal six, no five, the one where we were soliciting public donations for Grow in the Dark and the Growth Collection where, and I think that could be a model moving forward as we start to release new NFTs that are based off of RIP, which is something we’ve talked about internally and Schlomo has been working on.

Dr. Bitcoin:
And that’s just, whenever donations come in during a certain window, a certain percentage of them goes towards free buybacks and a certain percentage of it goes towards the point of the fundraising, whether we’re spending that on new Ross Holbrook artwork or we’re increasing the size of our own treasury.

Rene:
Dig it. Yeah. And I think that would be … All of this is couched under the other for me, which is the kind of proposals … For me, number one priority is updating our governance process so that it’s much, much more streamlined and clear to everyone how proposals … What needs to be included in a proposal and how do they get passed and what is the timeframe and making that all completely transparent and very clear. That’s the number one priority.

Rene:
The number two priority for me is figuring out which proposals are going to actually generate money, because we’ve blown through more money than I would’ve liked to, without finding a business model, like Jeremy said earlier. So I really, really want to prioritize every proposal that’s getting passed. The thing that I’m going to be caring about and what I’m going to be thinking about when voting on these is how does this generate revenue for us? How does this bring money in?

Rene:
Because we got to figure out what that is or else we are going to just go to zero, and we’ve got two and a half million in [inaudible 01:06:34] vault, and that gives us some time, but we should … It doesn’t feel like a luxurious amount of money. It feels like clock is ticking, basically. So anyways, wanted to point that out.

Rene:
I also wanted to point out that we’re technically over time. And I know I have another meeting. I actually have a meeting with Eric Hamilton. That’s seven minutes into it. So maybe we punt on going deeper on those things. I think the big takeaway for me for this call is we’re keeping the name. And I think we seem like we have broad alignment on updating the governance process, both in terms of what’s needed to be in these things and how we actually mechanically get them to a point where they can be voted on snapshot. And action item there is Danny’s going to digest what I have and put together a draft proposal to update that through our existing governance structure. And she’ll circulate that with all of us and we can make comments and then we can get that over into the AC and hopefully vote it into law. Anything else we want to talk about before we say goodbye?

Rene:
All right, well let’s fucking free Ross. Let’s pull in all the most talented people we know. Let’s make this the type of place that we love working at and feel empowered and just have a really good time. Okay. Big hug. Miss you all. Kisses kisses. High five.

Rene:
I don’t know if anyone wants to say anything before we say goodbye, but Eric, I’ll see you over on our Google meet link when we hang up.

Schlomo:
Free Ross Friday.

Dr. Bitcoin:
Free Ross Friday

Schlomo:
Free Ross.

Buttercup:
Free Ross Friday.

Rene:
Free Ross. All right. Cheers, everybody.

by | Apr 15, 2022 | community call, media | 0 comments

FreeRossDAO – June 10th Community Call

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpOFotnYnmQ 02:50 - Start04:00 - Community Updates11:45 - VR Experience Updates22:15 - NFT Marketplace...

FreeRossDAO – June 2nd Community Call

https://youtu.be/3BPENQZTXhE 03:30 - Start06:00 - General Community Updates & Bounties20:00 - New Business35:00 - NFT Projects...

FreeRossDAO – May 20th Community Call

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjftxOBCrK0 05:00 - Rename Proposal & Brand Identity07:30 - FreeRossDAO NFT Discussion21:00 -...