MIP102c2-SP17: MIP108
20 removals
| Words removed | 122 |
| Total words | 636 |
| Words removed (%) | 19.18 |
78 lines
122 additions
| Words added | 1175 |
| Total words | 1689 |
| Words added (%) | 69.57 |
180 lines
## 1: Scope Improvement
## 1: Scope Improvement
### 1.1: The Accessibility Advisory Council
### 1.1: The Accessibility Advisory Council
The Accessibility Advisory Council is a group of Ecosystem Actors that have been approved by Maker Governance to carry out advisory work related to improving the content of the Accessibility Scope Artifact.
The Accessibility Advisory Council is a group of Ecosystem Actors that have been approved by Maker Governance to carry out advisory work related to improving the content of the Accessibility Scope Artifact.
#### 1.1.1: Accessibility Advisory Council Membership Management
#### 1.1.1: Accessibility Advisory Council Membership Management
Members of the Advisory Council are directly approved by Maker Governance through a governance poll, and must fulfill specific criteria.
Members of the Advisory Council are directly approved by Maker Governance through a governance poll, and must fulfill specific criteria.
##### 1.1.1.1
##### 1.1.1.1
The Accessibility Facilitators must ensure that potential Advisory Council Members can apply to be approved by Maker Governance, using an open process with clear instructions.
The Accessibility Facilitators must ensure that potential Advisory Council Members can apply to be approved by Maker Governance, using an open process with clear instructions as per *1.1.1.3*.
##### 1.1.1.2
##### 1.1.1.2
Advisory Council Members must be Ecosystem Actors that are not involved in any business activity that could result in a conflict of interest, either directly or indirectly. They must also have relevant skills for providing professional expert input on the content that the Accessibility Scope is covering.
Advisory Council Members must be Ecosystem Actors that are not involved in any business, political, or other governance-related activity that could result in a conflict of interest, either directly or indirectly. They must also have relevant skills for providing professional expert input on the content that the Accessibility Scope is covering.
##### 1.1.1.3
##### 1.1.1.3
The Accessibility Facilitators must periodically, when it is relevant, review the Advisory Council Applications, and if they find applications that are suitable, bring them to a vote through an MKR governance poll. Approved Advisory Council Members are added to 10.2.3.1.
The Accessibility Facilitators must periodically, when it is relevant, review the Advisory Council Applications, and if they find applications that are suitable, bring them to a vote through an MKR governance poll. When Advisory Council Applications are posted on the Maker Forum, which must follow the template as per *1.1.2.4.1A*, the Accessibility Facilitators have a review period of 30 days. During this review period, the applicant must host a Community Q&A and shall answer as many questions and doubts as possible.
###### 1.1.1.3.1
The Accessibility Facilitators can extend this deadline, if necessary, by 15 days, provided they posted the justification in the Maker Forum.
###### 1.1.1.3.2
Once the review period is ended, the Accessibility Facilitators must publish the response to the application on the Forum, along with a description of the reasoning behind the decision. If approved, the application will continue with the Governance Process and proceed to a vote as per *1.1.1.3*.
###### 1.1.1.3.3
Upon a successful vote, the Accessibility Facilitators must arrange a service contract with the Advisory Council member, which must be made public. Approved Advisory Council Members are added to *1.1.1.6.1A*.
###### 1.1.1.3.4
Approved Advisory Council members have a term of service of 18 months from the time they are approved by Maker Governance. If desired, the Advisory Council Member can submit a new application for re-election when their term has between 60 and 30 days remaining. The re-election application must also fulfill *1.1.2* requirements and will open a new review period of 30 days where the Maker Community can provide feedback. The applicant shall again host a Community Q&A and respond to as many questions and doubts as possible. If approved, the re-election application will continue with the Governance Process and proceed to a vote as per *1.1.1.3*.
##### 1.1.1.4
##### 1.1.1.4
The Accessibility Facilitators may, if they deem it necessary, trigger a vote to remove an Advisory Council Member. If an Advisory Council Member has not done any paid work for the Scope for at least 1 year, then the Accessibility Facilitators can choose to remove them at will, if they deem it necessary.
The Accessibility Facilitators may, if they deem it necessary, trigger a vote to remove an Advisory Council Member. If an Advisory Council Member has not done any paid work for the Scope for at least 1 year, then the Accessibility Facilitators can choose to remove them at will, if they deem it necessary.
##### 1.1.1.5
##### 1.1.1.5: Accessibility Advisory Council Requirements
The current approved Accessibility Advisory Council Members are recorded in *1.1.1.5.1A*.
###### 1.1.1.5.1
###### 1.1.1.5.1A
Accessibility Advisory Council members can be individuals, groups of people, legal entities, or companies. They can be pseudonymous or known entities. Accessibility Advisory Council members must be aligned with the long-term goals of MakerDAO Endgame.
###### 1.1.1.5.2
Desired competencies for members of the Accessibility Advisory Council, as many of the following as possible:
1. Marketing expertise with a focus on web3 communities, governance, and growth.
2. Proven ability to devise strategies to expand user bases and increase adoption.
3. Experience in managing and engaging web3 communities.
4. Proven ability to create user-friendly and visually appealing interfaces.
5. Deep technical expertise of decentralized, resilient technologies that can be used to serve frontends.
6. Growth marketing acumen with a proven track record of growing mature Web3 products.
7. Great commmunication skills with a proven ability to explain complex technical concepts in simple, easy to grasp terms.
8. Expertise in Stablecoin or DeFi Marketing.
9. Deep understanding of the Maker Ecosystem and its endgame goals.
10. Solid understanding of various social media and communication platforms, as well as best practices for engaging with audiences on these platforms.
##### 1.1.1.6
The current approved Accessibility Advisory Council Members are recorded in *1.1.1.6.1A*.
###### 1.1.1.6.1A
¤¤¤
¤¤¤
Current list of Advisory Council Members:
Current list of Advisory Council Members:
N/A
N/A
¤¤¤
¤¤¤
#### 1.1.2: Accessibility Advisory Council Projects and Funding
#### 1.1.2: Accessibility Advisory Council Recognition
The Advisory Council is paid on a project basis to do specific work that improves all or specific parts of the Scope Framework.
##### 1.1.2.1
##### 1.1.2.1
Each Quarter, if they deem it necessary, the Accessibility Facilitators must solicit proposals and find one or more suitable Advisory Council Member to perform a project that will result in output that can be used to improve the Scope Artifact. This work output will be presented to the AVC Subcommittee Meetings as input for their Aligned Scope Proposals. As many AVCs as possible should be supported this way, prioritized by the Accessibility Facilitators.
In order to be eligible for the Accessibility Advisory Council as per *1.1.1.3*, an Ecosystem Actor must post a recognition submission message publicly on the Maker Governance Forum.
##### 1.1.2.2
##### 1.1.2.2
The submission message must be cryptographically signed by the Ecosystem Actor address.
##### 1.1.2.3
The cryptographically signed Accessibility Advisory Council Recognition Submission Messages must contain the information specified in *1.1.2.3.1* and *1.1.2.3.2*.
###### 1.1.2.3.1
The following text must be included: “[Name] Accessibility Advisory Council Recognition"
###### 1.1.2.3.2
A timestamp recording the time and date that the message was signed.
##### 1.1.2.4
The submission message must follow the template *1.1.2.4.1A*
###### 1.1.2.4.1A
```
Title: [Name] Accessibility Advisory Council Recognition Submission
- [Ecosystem Actor Ethereum address]
- [Cryptographically signed Advisory Council Recognition Submission Message]
- Applicant's name: [Company, team, or individual]
- Any other relevant identifying details:
- Twitter:
- Website:
- Email:
- Maker Forum:
- Telegram:
- LinkedIn:
- Discord:
- Github:
- Other:
- Presentation: [Introduction]
- Ethos and Vision:
- Team: [Founders and team members. Brief description of their skills and backgrounds]
- Services: [What is your company specialized in? What kind of services do you offer?]
- Experience: [A detailed history of relevant previous experience]
- Client References: [Who are your clients, what projects have you done and can you show the results of any of them?]
- Explain how your skills will contribute to improving the selected Scope: [Which specific aspect of the Scope do you intend to enhance, and what is the rationale behind your choice? How do you plan to improve the chosen aspect? Provide milestones, if applicable].
- Payment Details: [How shall the compensation for your contributions be structured? How many hours shall the work entail? Detail as much as possible]
- Emergency Availability: [Would you be available on short notice to provide advisory support in the event of an unforeseen emergency? How short of a notice? What would be your hourly rate for emergency advisory services rendered?]
```
#### 1.1.3: Accessibility Advisory Council Projects and Funding
The Advisory Council is paid on a project basis to do specific work that improves all or specific parts of the Scope Framework.
##### 1.1.3.1
Entities are encouraged to submit applications with the intention of enhancing a specific portion of the Scope Framework. Any entity can notice a problem in the Scope or something that can and should be improved and apply to undergo a process to suggest improvements. There are also sometimes specific pieces of advisory work listed in 1.1.3.2 that can be taken on by applicants. The Accessibility Facilitators should diligently encourage participants possessing relevant areas of expertise to actively engage in this process to the fullest extent possible. Accordingly, once this MIP is successfully passed, it is imperative that the Accessibility Facilitators promptly post a Request for Applicants to the forum within a period of 30 days. The Accessibility Facilitators may choose to utilize a Peer-to-Peer recruiting process, which involves allocating a portion of the Accessibility Advisory Council budget to incentivize ecosystem participants and community members to actively seek out applicants, providing comprehensive explanations of the process.
##### 1.1.3.2: Advisory Work for Accessibility Advisory Council Members
None yet identified
##### 1.1.3.3
Each Quarter, if they deem it necessary, the Accessibility Facilitators must solicit proposals and find one or more suitable Advisory Council Member to perform a project that will result in output that can be used to improve the Scope Artifact. This work output will be presented to the AVC Subcommittee Meetings as input for their Aligned Scope Proposals. As many AVCs as possible should be supported this way, prioritized by the Accessibility Facilitators. The Accessibility Facilitators must communicate in the first 15 days of a quarter if they believe no Advisory Council work is needed for that quarter.
##### 1.1.3.4
In case an ambiguous, uncertain or challenging situation arises related to the Scope Framework, the Accessibility Facilitators may publicly notify the Advisory Council Members to submit proposals for projects that aim to reactively specify the language of the Scope Framework to take into account the specific situation. The Accessibility Facilitators can then directly propose the change to the Scope Framework in a weekly governance poll.
In case an ambiguous, uncertain or challenging situation arises related to the Scope Framework, the Accessibility Facilitators may publicly notify the Advisory Council Members to submit proposals for projects that aim to reactively specify the language of the Scope Framework to take into account the specific situation. The Accessibility Facilitators can then directly propose the change to the Scope Framework in a weekly governance poll.
##### 1.1.2.3
##### 1.1.3.5
The Advisory Council may produce work output that is not directly compatible with the formatting of the Scope Artifact. In this case the Accessibility Facilitators must either transcribe it themselves, or hire an Ecosystem Actor to perform the transcription. This role does not require pre approval by Maker Governance.
The Advisory Council may produce work output that is not directly compatible with the formatting of the Scope Artifact. In this case the Accessibility Facilitators must either transcribe it themselves, or hire an Ecosystem Actor to perform the transcription. This role does not require pre approval by Maker Governance.
#### 1.1.3
#### 1.1.4
The Accessibility Facilitators may produce advisory input on the content of the Scope Artifacts themselves, as long as it is focused on improving process and governance content. They are prohibited from providing unilateral input on expert subject matter content.
The Accessibility Facilitators may produce advisory input on the content of the Scope Artifacts themselves, as long as it is focused on improving process and governance content. They are prohibited from providing unilateral input on expert subject matter content.
#### 1.1.4
#### 1.1.5
The Accessibility Facilitators have a budget available to pay for Advisory Council Projects per quarter. All spending must be limited to only what is deemed necessary and with a high probability of producing clearly measurable value, and this must transparently be accounted for in a forum post at least a week before any transaction occurs. The budget is contained in *1.1.4.1B*.
The Accessibility Facilitators have a budget available to pay for Advisory Council Projects per quarter. All spending must be limited to only what is deemed necessary and with a high probability of producing clearly measurable value, and this must transparently be accounted for in a forum post at least a week before any transaction occurs. The budget is contained in *1.1.5.1B*.
##### 1.1.4.1B
##### 1.1.5.1B
¤¤¤
¤¤¤
Advisory Council project budget:
Applicants should note that budgets for Advisory Councils are intentionally accommodative across the board in order to avoid having to delay by a full monthly governance cycle in unforeseen circumstances. They are not meant to be fully spent, and attempts to spend full budgets are less likely to be approved.
N/A
The Advisory Council project budget is as follows:
|Maximum Monthly Amount (DAI)|Maximum Monthly Amount (MKR)|Implementation|Start Date|Notes|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|50,000|N/A|Manual|2023-09-01||
¤¤¤
¤¤¤
### 1.2: Accessibility Scope DAO Toolkit Integration
### 1.2: Accessibility Scope DAO Toolkit Integration
The Accessibility Scope DAO Toolkit module must be built to give a full and accessible overview of all data and processes relevant to the Accessibility Scope.
The Accessibility Scope DAO Toolkit module must be built to give a full and accessible overview of all data and processes relevant to the Accessibility Scope.