Thanks for your comment Maria.
However, some of the points I brought up have not been addressed yet in your reply.
This is the key issue: wouldn’t it be better for Harmony to start with a more humble objective and succeed in a targeted region-specific DAO and then scale from there?
Here’s some constructive feedback to address issues in the proposal:
You wrote the proposed “Slavic DAO,” is “not representing the whole group of Slavic countries,” and “local DAO for each country can be created,” but why name it “Slavic DAO” without any roadmap on how to scale this DAO to represent 300+ million people? Even in the original proposal it says, ”How Slovakia and Czech Republic fits into Harmony DAO” … so clearly your roadmap begins with two countries already. Why not call it “Slovakia and Czech Republic DAO”? Why not focus on those two countries first? Or, create a Central Europe Slavic DAO – because that is essentially a region covering those two countries. This is especially true when we consider how the majority of the governors in this proposal are from the “Bitcoach” community – governors primarily based in those two countries.
In contrast, the Africa DAO has a roadmap on how to work with communities across the African continent.
Please note that the Africa DAO’s successful proposal:
[ Proposal for the preview, amendment or ratification of a Proposed Charter for Africa DAO ]
The Africa DAO’s charter is very clear it is a DAO to support people wanting to connect and collaborate across Africa. This is because Africa has lot of communities in crypto already; so the objective is offering “outreach” to these communities or organize Harmony supporters based in Africa to go to big events in specific African countries like Kenya or Nigeria.
And please also consider this quote from the Africa DAO’s original proposal:
Harmony’s Africa DAO mandate is to organically reinforce the Harmony African ecosystem, making it a key player on the African continent. Over time, the Harmony Africa DAO could even become redundant, having given way to multiple self-sustainable DAOs over Africa. In other words, Harmony’s Africa DAO will boost Harmony’s African ecosystem as it reaches cruising altitude.”
I want to emphasize the Africa DAO’s original proposal is to be a regional DAO starting with the intention to become redundant. Therefore, the Africa DAO’s objective is to support smaller nation-specific DAOs. And to reiterate, the Africa DAO has a roadmap and diverse team of governors to do this.
And I should also add that Africa is a region. It is an actual continental region. When people go on to create a Nigeria DAO, or a Kenya DAO, it is very, very, obvious even without reading the Africa DAO charter that the Africa DAO’s objective is to connect different communities together. Anyone creating a Nigeria DAO will be very much aware of that too. The Africa DAO becomes an accelerator in outreach to enable these smaller DAOs to grow. The Africa DAO’s proposal has a remarkable sense of understanding regarding the sensitivities, both linguistic and ethnic, for a very diverse region like Africa.
Sorry to repeat myself but unfortunately, much of what has been argued in replies shows how poorly thought-out the original proposal for “Slavic DAO” currently is. Because, the original proposal fails to offer any roadmap that IF other DAOs are created on a nation-specific level, how Slavic DAO would interact with them. I think specifics are definitely warranted here.
Going back to what you said, “Slavic countries’’ countries “do not like” each other and that is “sad”; I have not said that Slavic countries do not like each other. I am, however, saying let us move away from a blanket term for an ethnic/linguistic term covering 300 million+ people. This is a term, “Slavic” denoting very different languages, of people who live in very distinct parts of Europe.
And, I think the Harmony community would benefit if there was see evidence that someone in Croatia, Slovenia, or Serbia, would feel comfortable being part of a “Slavic DAO”. Why not find some governors from those countries to add in your proposal? Most likely, people from communities like Croatia would feel more comfortable in a “Balkans DAO” or a “West Balkans DAO”. Considering if that is the case, why not laser focus your DAO on a smaller region instead, i.e. like creating a Central Europe Slavic DAO?
Also, one of your commenters also said “Slavic DAO” is a title; and that “It is just a title,” and tried to brush off the issue of why it needs to target such a large area. But, I ask you to consider the above points I have made.
And then, you made the argument that the “Slavic DAO”, “…is the easiest way to “communicate, share ideas, meetup”; so I ask again, why not start with a smaller, sub-regional DAO? That is, unless you can offer a roadmap where these ideas can be transmitted across the “Slavic region” and incubate smaller “Slavic” DAOs as well.
I would point you again to the Africa DAO’s proposal. The reason why the Africa DAO’s proposal is well-thought is because the Africa DAO governors are very aware of the existing set of communities they’re working with. In contrast, the Slavic DAO is starting with the governors coming from Bitcoach and from only two countries out of 13 countries that could be considered “Slavic”. No other “Slavic” community were listed in the original proposal in-regards to creating a regional team of governors representing different parts of said “Slavic” community.