November 3 - added #4 & 5
Guidelines:
Element Analysis Documents analyze and interpret individual elements in a Main Document,
breaking down the meaning, implications, and applications of these elements
to provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of the Main Document's content.
The Analysis Component should contain the
interpretation, implications, and applications of the Element,
providing a detailed understanding of its role and meaning in the Target Document
in the broader context of the Spirit of the Atlas.
Make the implicit, explicit."AVC must limit their participation in Maker Governance to the creation of Aligned Governance Strategy and Aligned Scope Proposals that function resiliently based on open, objective processes and stay at a high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible. AVCs must not attempt to create biased or unfair conditions for specific Ecosystem Actors, or attempt to put in place unjustified, granular decisions directly, or indirectly through biased processes. GOV5 must specify processes in which AVCs are deactivated and their members derecognized in case there is clear misalignment risk. Any attempt by AVC to micromanage governance significantly increases the risk of misalignment as there could easily be a hidden conflict of interest behind the attempt at micromanagement. This section must detail principles and processes for detecting and reacting to the edge case risks related to AVCs overstepping their roles in the governance process."
"Element": "high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible",
"Analysis": "The Element, \"high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible\", is set within a Target Document that firmly constrains AVCs' scope of activity and impact on NEWDAO Governance. The first sentence of the Target Document reiterates that AVCs are charged with creating Aligned Governance Strategy and Aligned Scope Proposals (\"Position Documents\") that shape the evolution of the Primary Documents at a \"high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible.\" This Target Document must be read together with A.1.3.3.1.2, which defines the Primary Document category. A.1.3.3.1.2 states that AVCs must modify the Primary Documents \"as slowly as possible, and as little as possible while remaining fully adapted to the external environment.\" A.1.3.3.1.2, in turn, is connected to A.1.5, limiting AVCs' impact to making \"marginal improvements\" to the Adaptive Documents. A.1.3.3.1.2 and A.1.5 provide crucial context to understanding the Element.\n By the phrase \"high enough level", the Element limits AVCs to issuing, through their Position Documents, generalized or more abstract guidelines, frameworks and strategies that can improve the Primary Documents in a desired direction. This \"desired direction\" is the Strategic Perspective of an AVC (A.1.5). \n The Element's critical term, \"micromanagement\", provides the key to understanding the previous phrase \"high enough level.\" Generally, \"micromanagement\" refers to a style of supervision or oversight that is too involved in the day-to-day decisionmaking that should be handled by the frontline workers. \n Applying this general understanding to the specific context of AVCs and the Target Document, we arrive at the following analysis. On the one hand, the Element grants AVCs the authority to influence the direction and alignment of Governance through proposing Primary Document modifications based on broad, strategic vision, policies and principles. On the other hand, the Element prohibits AVCs from modifying the Primary Documents on the level of granular, day-to-day or operational execution. In other words, the Element succinctly contrasts \"aligned\" with \"misaligned\" behavior. An AVC is aligned when its impact on Governance and the Adaptive Documents is limited to driving incremental improvements via \"big-picture\" strategy or frameworks. An AVC is misaligned when it seeks to prescribe detailed actions or otherwise engage in day-to-day operational decisions and interventions. \n The Element and its Target Document is thus a significant component of the Atlas' articulation of the \"AVC process\" and, more generally, the balance of power in NEWDAO Governance. By explicitly prohibiting micromanagement on the part of AVCs, the Target Document guards the balance of power in NEWDAO Governance. AVCs are constrained to the domain in which they can play their unique role: as an accessible interface to NEWDAO Governance that enfranchises the wider community of MKR holders (A.1.5.7). The detailed execution or operationalization of vision, principles and processes must be left to the Ecosystem Actors on the \“frontlines\” who are capable of discerning the situation-specific optimum. This Element Analysis should be read together with the second sentence of the Target Document, which provides that AVCs must not create \"biased or unfair conditions\" for specific Ecosystem Actors (A.1.5.8.0.2.X). This part of the Target Document refers to the need to maintain a neutral, robust and competitive Ecosystem Actor marketplace, in which Ecosystem Actors are granted an optimal degree of creative, autonomous decisionmaking and adaptability. To maintain Universal Alignment, this value must be held in delicate balance with AVCs' role in Maker Governance."
"AVC must limit their participation in Maker Governance to the creation of Aligned Governance Strategy and Aligned Scope Proposals that function resiliently based on open, objective processes and stay at a high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible. AVCs must not attempt to create biased or unfair conditions for specific Ecosystem Actors, or attempt to put in place unjustified, granular decisions directly, or indirectly through biased processes. GOV5 must specify processes in which AVCs are deactivated and their members derecognized in case there is clear misalignment risk. Any attempt by AVC to micromanage governance significantly increases the risk of misalignment as there could easily be a hidden conflict of interest behind the attempt at micromanagement. This section must detail principles and processes for detecting and reacting to the edge case risks related to AVCs overstepping their roles in the governance process."
"Element": "biased or unfair conditions",
"Analysis": "The Element, \"biased or unfair conditions\", is set within a Target Document that firmly constrains AVCs' scope of activity and impact on NEWDAO Governance. The Element is closely connected to the Target Document's prohibition of AVCs from micromanaging. See A.1.5.8.0.2.X (High enough Level to Ensure Micromanagement Isn't Possible Element Analysis). The Target Document grants AVCs the authority to influence the direction and alignment of Governance through proposing Primary Document modifications based on broad, strategic vision, policies and principles. On the other hand, the Target Document prohibits AVCs from modifying the Primary Documents on the level of granular, day-to-day or operational execution. \n The Element, \"biased or unfair conditions,\" characterizes the misalignment risks arising from micromanagement. Generally, \"biased conditions\" means conditions that are applied differentially versus equally. \"Biased conditions\" also has the sense of being derived from a limited or partisan viewpoint that is inapt for the situation at hand. Applying this general understanding to the specific context of AVCs and the Target Document, we arrive at the following analysis. The Target Document prohibits AVCs from unjustifiably creating differential conditions for Ecosystem Actors based on an AVC process motivated by improper bias. Although AVCs' Strategic Perspective is inherently \"biased,\" the Atlas requires AVCs to articulate that bias at a high enough level in the form of generalized values, policies and frameworks. These values, policies and frameworks should apply neutrally, fairly and universally to all Ecosystem Actors to which they pertain (A.1.5.1). When AVCs accomplish this Atlas requirement, they have deployed their vantage point, or Strategic Perspective, in service to the whole - the Spirit of the Atlas and Universal Alignment. \n When the Atlas Documents governing their activity have been improperly compromised via AVC micromanagement, Ecosystem Actors are saddled with \"biased or unfair conditions\". This is because AVCs necessarily have a partial vantage point. They do not have the means to have the direct, firsthand experience in operational domains that Active Ecosystem Actors have. On the contrary, AVCs have a unique role as an accessible interface to NEWDAO Governance that enfranchises the wider community of MKR holders (A.1.5.7). \n When an AVC breaches the Target Document's prohibition against micromanagement, the AVC wrongfully imposes its necessarily limited, or biased, vantage point on the Ecosystem Actors engaged in the operational domains of NEWDAO Ecosystem. By imposing granular, prescriptive interventions at the operational level, AVCs hinder the knowledge that would otherwise be gained from new learning curves effectively displacing old ones. The day-to-day operationalization of vision, principles and processes must be left to the Ecosystem Actors on the \“frontlines\” who are capable of discerning the situation-specific optimum."
"AVC must limit their participation in Maker Governance to the creation of Aligned Governance Strategy and Aligned Scope Proposals that function resiliently based on open, objective processes and stay at a high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible. AVCs must not attempt to create biased or unfair conditions for specific Ecosystem Actors, or attempt to put in place unjustified, granular decisions directly, or indirectly through biased processes. GOV5 must specify processes in which AVCs are deactivated and their members derecognized in case there is clear misalignment risk. Any attempt by AVC to micromanage governance significantly increases the risk of misalignment as there could easily be a hidden conflict of interest behind the attempt at micromanagement. This section must detail principles and processes for detecting and reacting to the edge case risks related to AVCs overstepping their roles in the governance process."
"Element": "unjustified, granular decisions",
"Analysis": "The Element, \"unjustified, granular decisions\", is set within a Target Document that firmly constrains AVCs' scope of activity and impact on NEWDAO Governance. The Element is closely connected to the Target Document's prohibition of AVCs from micromanaging. See A.1.5.8.0.2.X (High enough Level to Ensure Micromanagement Isn't Possible Element Analysis). The Target Document grants AVCs the authority to influence the direction and alignment of Governance through proposing Primary Document modifications based on broad, strategic vision, policies and principles. On the other hand, the Target Document prohibits AVCs from modifying the Primary Documents on the level of granular, day-to-day or operational execution. \n The Element, \"unjustified, granular decisions,\" characterizes the results of AVC micromanagement. It is evident why AVC micromanagement will lead to \"granular\" decisions, but an examination of the meaning of \"unjustified\" is needed. AVC micromanagement will lead to decisions that are \"unjustified,\" because such decisions lack a legitimate basis in the Atlas; this is because AVC micromanagement is a clear violation of the mandate imposed on AVCs. Namely, the word \"justified\" closely connects this Target Document to two key Atlas Documents: A.1.3.3.2.6 and A.1.5.1. \n A.1.3.3.2.6 and A.1.5.1 use the words \"justify\" and \"justification\", respectively. These Atlas Documents require AVCs to justify all proposed modifications to the Adaptive Documents by substantiating how said modifications adhere to the Spirit of the Atlas and advance Universal Alignment. Thus, AVC micromanagement will naturally lead to \"unjustified decisions\" in the sense that the AVC has failed their mandate concerning the proper justification of all Adaptive Document modifications. \n By explicitly prohibiting AVCs from making unjustified, granular decisions, the Element and its Target Document are a significant component of the Atlas' definition of the \"AVC process.\" The AVC process is aligned only when it proceeds in such a way that all AVCs' proposed Adaptive Document modifications are high level versus granular; and fully justified as adhering to the Spirit of the Atlas, both explicit and extrapolated, and advancing Universal Alignment (A.1.5.1). The Element and Target Document constrain AVCs to the domain in which they can play their unique role: as an accessible interface to NEWDAO Governance that enfranchises the wider community of MKR holders (A.1.5.7). The day-to-day operationalization of vision, principles and processes must be left to the Ecosystem Actors on the \“frontlines\” who are capable of discerning the situation-specific optimum."
"AVC must limit their participation in Maker Governance to the creation of Aligned Governance Strategy and Aligned Scope Proposals that function resiliently based on open, objective processes and stay at a high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible. AVCs must not attempt to create biased or unfair conditions for specific Ecosystem Actors, or attempt to put in place unjustified, granular decisions directly, or indirectly through biased processes. GOV5 must specify processes in which AVCs are deactivated and their members derecognized in case there is clear misalignment risk. Any attempt by AVC to micromanage governance significantly increases the risk of misalignment as there could easily be a hidden conflict of interest behind the attempt at micromanagement. This section must detail principles and processes for detecting and reacting to the edge case risks related to AVCs overstepping their roles in the governance process."
"Element": "indirectly through biased processes",
"Analysis": "The Element, \"indirectly through biased processes\", is set within a Target Document that firmly constrains AVCs' scope of activity and impact on NEWDAO Governance. This Element should be read together with A.1.5.8.0.2.1 (High Enough Level to Ensure Micromanagement Isn't Possible Element Analysis) and A.1.5.8.0.2.2 (Biased or Unfair Conditions Element Analysis).\n
The Target Document grants AVCs the authority to influence the direction and alignment of Governance through proposing Primary Document modifications based on broad, strategic vision, policies and principles. On the other hand, the Target Document prohibits AVCs from modifying the Primary Documents on the level of granular, day-to-day or operational execution.\n
The Element, \"indirectly through biased processes,\" should be analyzed in distinct parts. "Biased processes" refers to decision-making or other procedural mechanisms that are misaligned with the Spirit of the Atlas (A.1.2) because they are differential, partial, inequitable, or unjustified. The second part of the Element to analyze is "indirectly." This word "indirectly" must be read together with the earlier part of the sentence, which prohibits AVCs from putting in place "unjustified, granular decisions directly" (A.1.5.8.0.2.3). The Target Document thereby contrasts "direct" forms of misaligned AVC acts versus "indirect" forms of misaligned AVC acts.\n
Direct forms of misaligned AVC acts would be those in which the AVC acts in an open, immediate and explicit manner to accomplish a misaligned intention. In such "direct" forms, it is relatively easy to directly attribute the AVC's act with a misaligned intention. In contrast, indirect forms of misaligned AVC acts would be those in which the AVC acts in a covert, subtle or roundabout manner to achieve a misaligned intention. By definition, with indirect forms of misaligned acts, it is more difficult to attribute the AVC's act to a misaligned intention. See related FacilitatorDAO Action Examples.\n
The Element and its Target Document are a significant component of the Atlas' definition of the \"AVC process\" and warns against the direct and indirect ways that it can be subverted. The AVC process is aligned only when it proceeds in such a way that all AVCs' proposed Adaptive Document modifications are sufficiently high-level versus granular; and fully justified as adhering to the Spirit of the Atlas, both explicit and extrapolated, and advancing Universal Alignment (A.1.5.1). The Target Document makes clear that AVC misalignment via a direct act is as equally blameworthy or violative of the Spirit of the Atlas as is AVC misalignment via an indirect act.
"AVC must limit their participation in Maker Governance to the creation of Aligned Governance Strategy and Aligned Scope Proposals that function resiliently based on open, objective processes and stay at a high enough level to ensure micromanagement isn't possible. AVCs must not attempt to create biased or unfair conditions for specific Ecosystem Actors, or attempt to put in place unjustified, granular decisions directly, or indirectly through biased processes. GOV5 must specify processes in which AVCs are deactivated and their members derecognized in case there is clear misalignment risk. Any attempt by AVC to micromanage governance significantly increases the risk of misalignment as there could easily be a hidden conflict of interest behind the attempt at micromanagement. This section must detail principles and processes for detecting and reacting to the edge case risks related to AVCs overstepping their roles in the governance process."
"Element": "clear misalignment risk",
"Analysis": "The Element, \"clear misalignment risk\", is set within a Target Document that firmly constrains AVCs' scope of activity and impact on NEWDAO Governance. The Target Document grants AVCs the authority to influence the direction and alignment of Governance through proposing Primary Document modifications based on broad, strategic vision, policies and principles. On the other hand, the Target Document prohibits AVCs from "micromanagement" - or modifying the Primary Documents on the level of granular, day-to-day or operational execution.\n
The first function of the Element is to characterize AVC micromanagement as a \"misalignment risk\". Critically, this phrase is a forward-looking concept. The Target Document takes a preemptive, rather than a reactive, approach to AVC misalignment. It makes clear that the mere "risk" of AVC misalignment requires immediate redress; waiting until actual misalignment has occurred would defeat the Target Document's purpose.\n
The Target Document thus prioritizes the proactive identification and mitigation of factors that could lead to AVC misalignment, including micromanagement. With its focus on proactive safeguarding of the AVC process, the Target Document also makes clear that AVC micromanagement, or even any attempt at micromanagement, must not be excused, justified or downplayed due to perceived degree or scale of the micromanagement. Even attempted micromanagement by an AVC significantly increases the risk of misalignment; the risks must therefore be actively managed by detailed protocols in the Atlas.\n
The second function of the Element is to characterize the degree of misalignment risk that merits the deactivation of the AVC and the derecognition of its members. Again, the Target Document aims to proactively identify and mitigate misalignment risk; an actual occurrence of a misaligned act is not required to trigger the deactivation of the AVC and derecognition of its members. "Clear misalignment risk" means that the AVC misalignment risk is evident or discernible beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, there is little to no room for interpretation or disagreement when it comes to conceding the existence of a "clear misalignment risk." A misalignment risk that is not "clear" is more subtle or ambiguous. Therefore, a misalignment risk that is not "clear" would be susceptible to reasonable disagreement and varying interpretation. A misalignment risk that does not rise to the level of being "clear" in the sense of this Element would not trigger deactivation/derecognition, but would still require appropriate redress.