Moderator: Abbey

Note Taker: Shelby/Abbey

Key Takeaways:

summarize 5 minutes before end of brainstorm session

Questions & Discussion Points:

General Notes:

1. [GUIDING QUESTION A] What does this strategy look like? A working charter, a static vision, manifesto, annual objectives, or a mix? What do Core Teams need from this charter, what does it need to contain? How granular is it?
   1. Do we need an overarching strategy?
      1. helpful to have higher level manifesto
      2. Reason to have one: fund core teams
      3. Negative: could limit future development
   2. What does it look like?
      1. Investing vs company
      2. “Enabling Decentralized, free & open source code collaboration through funding of projects that support, develop and conserve pubic goods/FOSS ecosystem.”
      3. fund projects values aligned (FOSS) - investing in ecosystem that will help not only us but everyone in it
      4. Execution!
      5. adoption of Radicle tools/stack -
      6. Supporting, developing, conservation of public goods
      7. sustainable dev of project
      8. support entrepreneurial folks - based on the vibes at the moment
      9. Defunding: fail to execute, fall out of mission alignment?
2. [GUIDING QUESTION B] How does the Strategy Pillar set this org-wide strategy? How often would it regularly change? Should a Radicle-wide strategy suggest priorities that inform how wide or narrow a Core Team’s objectives should be (in order to be approved)? What would be a process to shift those priorities?
   1. How should shepherding be done?
      1. core team leads coordinate at higher level too
      2. should feel like working with peers - no gatekeeping
      3. But have finite resources so need to have some power structure
      4. Predictability & accountability -
3. [GUIDING QUESTION C] Assuming the shepherding should be done by a “body” of people (the “Strategy Pillar”), who should be part of this body? How should they be selected? Should terms or other ways to manage balance of powers be implemented?
   1. Core team leads?
   2. interest based?
   3. open source community leads - external?
   4. OG investors

Key Takeaways:

summarize 5 minutes before end of brainstorm session

• To be “shepearded” Core Teams, should be able to engage treat this pillar as a peer, instead of as a gatekeeper
• Strategy as an investment fund vs. a company
• Mission & vision are static and are a necessary part of “strategy”. But the strategy (in terms of execution and implementation) should actually be defined by Core Teams peer-to-peer. Then there should be accountability mechanisms in place to ensure that yearly strategy of Core Teams is executed well.
  • Strategy is “how we get there”
    • Having a single strategy might constrain what future directions of the project
  • Vision/manifesto is where “there” is
• Core Teams are best supported with predictability & consistency and regardless of structure, there must be mechanisms for recourse. Fair and consistent application of goals reduces risk

Questions & Discussion Points:

General Notes: