Reduce the Set of Head Ambassadors and Start an Effective Ambassador Program

Do we have a new Don in our Polkadot Village, Mamma Mia!
Ambasciatori, ambasciatori vai in piazza per vedere il nuovo Don.

Polkadot Ambassador Program(Drama in 3 Acts):

Stage 1: (Main characters - Web3F and Parity, Ambassadors)
Develop the program for 5 years, create 3 generations with 3 different coordinators, onboard 500 ambassadors who don't know what's next after they receive the title.
Onboard 50 highly motivated seniors and 12 head ambassadors who contribute, no matter what.

Stage 2: (Same characters + Whale)
Abandon the transition to the third generation of the ambassador program which was developed by Parity for 3 years and give it in the hands of a selfish and childish Whale to play. Reimagine the program according to his sweet dreams. Throw all the ambassadors, including head ambassadors, who were supposed to be responsible for the transition of the program into garbage. Choose new 21 head ambassadors by Whale, including the bot Michiko Watanabe and a bunch of other random people.

Stage 3: (Don + the magic team HA)
Cancel head ambassadors because, you know, there are too many head ambassadors; we don't need too many in the kitchen, nah, 10 enough for cooking.
Credibility and trust going to Zero.

Curtain, applause.

Aye on the plan and push for results.

Nay on the process that led to this.

For what it's worth, here's a suggestion that could run with six strategic leaders and five supporting roles:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PdReHq150fxDHQ-FOjLhVENOG4RdmsmjPrpLo55xqi4/edit?usp=sharing

Wait but less ambassadors = centralization, which is the opposite to Polkadot concept!
It's better to extend to 100 ambassadors with less salary, it would be more decentralized and less corrupted.

"Too many cooks in the kitchen"
Wait, isn't that how democracy and decentralization converts into dictatorship throughout the world history?

"We, the remaining Head Ambassadors have agreed on the following 100-day plan, which we will bring into execution immediately."
You don't even care about voting, you already decided?
Now the biggest DAO becomes CAO (Centralized) and OpenGov becomes ClosedGov (decisions behind closed doors) ?

Ok, guys, if this proposal passes, here's a new logo for Polkadot CAO (Centralized Autonomous Organization) where only 10 people will decide everything despite what community thinks

Creating things that are general in nature (like an Ambassador Program) is too hard in DAOs - it's more effective to not do things then to push and accomplish something specific. That's why I'm skeptical even this smaller group will accomplish much. I'm voting AYE to support them, regardless, since:

1. The people proposed to stay are leaning towards action and those I know personally fit the requirement well.
2. This structure is an improvement, for the reasons listed in the proposal.
   I disagree with the above comments who fear this move as towards centralization - Ambassadors are not roles that are too powerful, and it's not 1 person, it's 11 people. On the other hand if we want to have an Ambassador program, we need something that works. 21 didn't work (judging by the amount of time that passed since they were voted in and the complete lack of movement since), so let's try a smaller, leaner group that may move things along.

This whole thing is a bit of a farce, but par for the course for Polkadot OpenGov.

First, the current HA model needs to be torn down and stewarded by W3F or a specialized outsourcer, but I'll get to that in a minute.

OpenGov Elected HAs are being removed by a subset of HAs that think they know better. Of course, I'm sure they are right that some of the 'cut' team aren't worth it, but the nerve to think that a forum post and a set of slides justify having HA Referendum 2, without open dialogue, communication, or allowing anyone to defend themselves before putting it up to vote. That's a display of those that think they are entitled, but not certainly not enlightened, and a symptom of the disease of OpenGov, which some of them would turn around and say is a problem when it suits them.

But back to W3F, when they sit back and watch and make little gestures with little impact like DV, but talk about this grand sandbox that is so fun to watch yet burns millions of $$$ (that actually did come from somewhere and didn’t grow on Polkadot trees), it's implicit consent—they are meant to be the stewards of this network.

Web3 and Polkadot fail if people sit back and giggle at paying deprived people to get tattoos because they need to feed their families, fund grifters who can feed the egos of bagholders to fund their own vanity projects, and build projects with no structure or vision. If the SEC took another look at Polkadot "OpenGov" today, after declaring that the network is software and not a security, there is no doubt the power of a few individuals shows that it has morphed back to a plot of land ruled by a few.

So this loops all the way back to this post. It's a fork of a flawed idea that draws attention away from the root of the problem. If the authors were sincere, they would have proposed a teardown of the whole structure. But I guess they, too, want to build a wall around their own section of the plot of land.

With all due respect, you can definitely suggest to reduce number of seats (or even cancel the entire program), but who gives you the right to decide what candidate to remove?

You think there should be 10 seats eventually? no problem, then first let the community agree on that, and if they do - let them decide who will be those 10 to be elected

Would it be wrong to expect to hear from every HA in this proposal? Does OP speak for all 10 of the referenced HAs?

An HA is meant to be a position of leadership, so where is the leadership of HAs in discussing this? It's been a day so maybe some are formulating thoughts, but as a community, we should expect and demand that this should be a main priority of every single HA -- to express their thoughts on this proposal. Why should the community have to debate this with such little facts and information, for us to sort out? This post is already a complete fail of the HA program.

My view -- Nay. The case hasn't been presented on why those that are to be removed are selected, and it hasn't presented solutions on how this could be avoided in the future -- presenting Proof of (HA) Work to the community.

Where's the audit trail, where's the baseline, where's the documentation? For a 10k/m job, if I presented this to a boss, I would be laughed out of the office, and maybe put a spotlight on my own job.

Should DOT holders hold HAs to a lower standard?

First set the bar for yourself. Then publish it. Then gather feedback. Then adjust. Then get approval. Then hold yourself and others accountable to that standard. Then take action on those that fall below the bar.

You (and presumably the 10 included in 'we' - until we hear otherwise) jumped to the last step, or at least presented it to the community that way.

Jim | CertHum

I am saddened to see how far infighting in this HA program has come, but I have to respond here nonetheless. The proposal talks about improving efficiency and reducing costs in the HA Program, but I think it’s time to see it for what it is: A power-grab by some self-appointed elites.

Most importantly, it is deeply undemocratic and flies in the face of OpenGov and everything Polkadot is supposed to stand for.

This proposal attempts to reduce the number of HAs from 21 to 10. This in itself is not necessarily a bad idea because yes, the program has been somewhat bloated and inefficient. But if we agree to cut the numbers in half, I am sure every DOT holder will have their views about who should be in and who should be out. Who is best placed to represent Polkadot as ambassador. I certainly have my views on this, but my views are irrelevant here. What we all should be able to agree on, is that the way the above list was created, was deeply undemocratic.

As a reminder, every HA has been individually voted into the program through OpenGov, and only OpenGov can vote people out again. So who do DonDiegoSanches and his cronies think they are, that they can come up with a list of who they like and who they don’t? They have not provided any evidence why they think THEY are the right people to take this HA program forward. Similarly, they have not stated any specific reason why they believe the other 10 individuals should be dismissed. They only present the finalized list to OpenGov for a binary AYE/NAY vote.

If DonDiegoSaches and his co-conspirators had been serious about reforming the program (which they were not – this is simply an attempted Coup), there would have been a much better way: Create a Wish For Change request to reduce the headcount to 10, and if that passes, leave it up to OpenGov to vote on who remains, and who has to leave. That at least would have been democratic.

I’m all in for reforming the HA program and making it more efficient. But if we allow an unelected group of self-appointed “leaders” to pat themselves on the shoulder, saying how great they are while stabbing their own peers in the back, this entire program is destined for doom.

Giotto recently launched a proposal to cancel this Ref, which should be supported! My conclusion is simple: If we wanna reduce the size of the HA collective to 10, sure, let’s do it. But let OpenGov decide who’s in and who’s out.

The way this ref #1186 came to birth is highly undemocratic as it is a small group of people picking which Head Ambassadors (HAs) are to stay and which are to leave. As I understand, a large part of the HAs that were designated to stay did not know about this until the last day.

For Polkadot to thrive, we need to work together instead of creating rifts between different groups. We need to support builders and developers to continue to build the best tech on Polkadot. The role of ambassadors, including HAs is primarily outward facing to **attract the best builders, drive user adoption and to bring in capital ** to make all this happen.

The HA programme is taking good shape with various working groups having been formed to focus on these three pillars, in addition to setting up a mechanism for onboarding the ambassadors to multiply the impact, as well as procedures for housekeeping. Many HAs, including those that are on the proposed leave list, have been working tirelessly on the programme, attended events, spoke at conferences and had countless meetings and calls with builders, investors, corporates etc.

To now pick a few friends and kick out the rest seems just wrong and undemocratic. What I suggest as a way forward is to:
1) Cancel this ref #1186
2) Open a forum discussion with polling function for DOT holders to express how many HAs there should be, i.e. 21, 15,11, 9, and then have a runoff poll between the 2 highest %, just like in real-world elections
3) Once the number of HAs has been ascertained, repost a ref to change the number of HA
4) Let DOT holders decide on who should be a HA, give every HA the opportunity to present the work done. If the result of 2) is 21, then step 4) is not necessary, but of course regular reporting on work done should still be published as discussed in the programme.

In the meantime all elected HAs shall continue their work on the HA programme, no matter how many HA it will be in the end we do not have the time to delay this further. Polkadot has the best tech and we cannot let other chains outshine us just because we are too busy with internal matters.

Before rushing into a new unplanned rush which may cost us additional months.. it may make sense to ask the active HAs to do at least a retrospective, listing what worked and what didnt (in a public way), gathering key learnings from the first try and build upon these learnings. Right no there are literally 0 insights on what exactly went wrong within the HAs the past 2 months. No stated learnings and rushing into a new try doesnt sounds that much effective to me as it will likely simply repeat the same issues while expecting different outcomes.
Also very much against moving fast and not loosing more time, curring time in planning only leads to messy executions. Take the time it needs, dont get rushed by own ambitions, make sure to develop a speed everyone is able to follow and to maintain...." building in the speed of trust"

Good morning community,

I will say that conflicts often work to clean up systems, and this one we currently have, is one of them. So I would like to take this opportunity to briefly express my views:

I will explain why this is a botched referendum and its possible solutions.

Then I will mention the work done by HA to clarify the misunderstandings spread around.

And finally I will mention a category or performances called “Ecosystem Agents” and why I believe it is incompatible with the HA program.

1. Why is it a botched referendum and possible solutions: We HA, as an association, gave ourselves internal rules to follow ( bylaws ). Those rules are legally binding because it is an international prerogative of all associations given by all governmental authorities.

Those bylaws for our decision-making process included regular weekly meetings with a quorum of 51% of HA. We voted on the key submitted proposals and we also recorded them. All information and links can be found on the official Ambassadors Discord channel.

So in this particular case of the referendum we found out that precisely the HA which did not assist to practically any of the meetings (therefore consistently sabotaged our work), are the initiators of this misleading voting process. It is indeed a total irony.

Conclusion: This referendum process is extremely unethical and highly probable is also legally liable. Therefore it is just a botched power grab. So I am actually relieved that I was not considered “eligible” by these 3 “leaders” initiating this action to be on their list to remain (I know decency will make some in the list speak out).

Solutions: Option A. As the legal system unanimously establishes: an arbitrage shall step in and fix the pitiful situation and claim responsibilities. Option B. We revoke/cancel this initiative by another referendum.

2. The good work done by HA: to clarify the misunderstandings spread around the evidence will be provided next week and a report will be presented. Please join the weekly public HAs call.

3. The incompatibility of “Ecosystem Agents” issue: Since we need transparency to avoid further misunderstandings, any other activity that involves being paid for providing the same service to the same client shall be ruled out. The role of Ecosystem Agent can’t be overlapping with the HA one. I call those who hold both an HA position and an Ecosystem Agent (EA) at the same time to report on their political views about the HA program. Additionally, any payments received through the EA program must be made transparent.

Since this referendum was posted in disguise, it is necessary to make public how and by whom this secret voting was developed.

I believe in decentralization and the empowerment of communities, and I have more than 4 years working advocating for Polkadot. So in my opinion, we’re transiting a decisive moment where the ecosystem is defining itself to unleash all its true potential.

Good morning community,

I will say that conflicts often work to clean up systems, and this one we currently have, is one of them. So I would like to take this opportunity to briefly express my views:

I will explain why this is a botched referendum and its possible solutions.

Then I will mention the work done by HA to clarify the misunderstandings spread around.

And finally I will mention a category or performances called “Ecosystem Agents” and why I believe it is incompatible with the HA program.

1. Why is it a botched referendum and possible solutions: We HA, as an association, gave ourselves internal rules to follow ( bylaws ). Those rules are legally binding because it is an international prerogative of all associations given by all governmental authorities.

Those bylaws for our decision-making process included regular weekly meetings with a quorum of 51% of HA. We voted on the key submitted proposals and we also recorded them. All information and links can be found on the official Ambassadors Discord channel.

So in this particular case of the referendum we found out that precisely the HA which did not assist to practically any of the meetings (therefore consistently sabotaged our work), are the initiators of this misleading voting process. It is indeed a total irony.

Conclusion: This referendum process is extremely unethical and highly probable is also legally liable. Therefore it is just a botched power grab. So I am actually relieved that I was not considered “eligible” by these 3 “leaders” initiating this action to be on their list to remain (I know decency will make some in the list speak out).

Solutions: Option A. As the legal system unanimously establishes: an arbitrage shall step in and fix the pitiful situation and claim responsibilities. Option B. We revoke/cancel this initiative by another referendum.

2. The good work done by HA: to clarify the misunderstandings spread around the evidence will be provided next week and a report will be presented. Please join the weekly public HAs call.

3. The incompatibility of “Ecosystem Agents” issue: Since we need transparency to avoid further misunderstandings, any other activity that involves being paid for providing the same service to the same client shall be ruled out. The role of Ecosystem Agent can’t be overlapping with the HA one. I call those who hold both an HA position and an Ecosystem Agent (EA) at the same time to report on their political views about the HA program. Additionally, any payments received through the EA program must be made transparent.

Since this referendum was posted in disguise, it is necessary to make public how and by whom this secret voting was developed.

I believe in decentralization and the empowerment of communities, and I have more than 4 years working advocating for Polkadot. So in my opinion, we’re transiting a decisive moment where the ecosystem is defining itself to unleash all its true potential.

Voting NAY
Rational:
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater
More detailed at:
https://forum.polkadot.network/t/head-ambassadors-a-more-structured-path-forward/10208

Lemma 4: Web3 is the norms and principles of the Free World applied to the digital realm.

“And it turns out that we should be…not emotionally driven, not driven by passions, but driven by rational discourse in order to come to an idea about how the world works and what decisions we should take.

We should be open about this discourse, and so forth.”

Gavin Wood, Polkadot Decoded Asia 2024 presentation on individuality, vid

Friday was a disappointing day to see what happened to the Head Ambassadors. While drama has always been the life of an HA, it was definitely surprising to see that one group of HAs had sectioned themselves off and along with some community members, made a private discussion/judgment of which of the rest of the HAs should stay or go, which resulted in this proposal, which is being put in front of token holders for approval.

Three reasons were given:

• Too many cooks in the kitchen slowed progress
• The primary responsibility of HAs is to be leaders
• The cost structure should be lean at the beginning

Personally, I haven’t been happy with the progress we’ve been making in moving the ambassador program forward, so I agree with the overall sentiment here that more needs to be done (and faster). But I believe this proposal is misguided and sets a poor precedent for the culture of the ambassador program as well as Polkadot, and I hope my colleagues who are putting it forward realize that.

There are a few points I’d like to emphasize:

• The 100 day plan was supposed to be prepared by a working group. Instead of coming back to the larger group with the plan, it seems they started to discuss this action. It seems disingenuous to blame “too many cooks in the kitchen” for not getting things done, when actually one group split off from the rest and stopped participating.

• In a professional setting, you always have people that you disagree with that you need to work with, and working through differences, while inefficient at first, results in a stronger team moving forward. In this situation, it seemed like there were only a few overall meetings that occurred before the group decided to exit the collaborative process and work to split the group.

• Leadership is bringing together people of different backgrounds and persuasions, and working through differences and achieving a result, and true power is not having to use it. There will be similar challenges to grow the ambassador program moving forward, because the team will need to work in a multicultural global environment with complex personalities. If the “leadership team” is starting off by eliminating a people-problem instead of working to solve it, how can the community have trust that something similar won’t happen again?

• The culture of the ambassador program should be results focused, not politics focused. How can a decision like this be made without letting the community understand the results generated by ambassadors for the past few months via an open process? Like in the technical fellowship, results should be presented before an evaluation takes place. HAs should lead by example in this way to set healthy standards for the community.

• Making an evaluation and decision in a non-transparent political and strategic way by a small group seems to be against the ideals of web3. “Trust me that we chose the right HAs and approve them please.” It seems like there is a consequentialist (the ends justify the means) argument made here to justify progressing faster, but this is a slippery slope. “How” something happens is just as important as “what” happens, and we cannot compromise on the former if we are to really steward web3 into the world and create a resilient DAO.

Hi,

Please find my public statement and advice about this ref here: https://infosec.exchange/@six/113225203555730328

Less drama, more success.

Have a gread day.

@six raises interesting points:

1. DonDiegoSanchez told me there was another proposal planned by unnamed individuals to "kick all Head Ambassadors out", so this is why they started #1186.
2. Note that normally I vote only with 1 DOT because everything is decided by whales in the end. I signal I am participating but my DOT voting power is nowhere compared to them and wish for a more meritocratic approach in the future (people voting on what they are actually experienced about, not on everything).
3. +The merged doc is worth reading.

I just don't like the fact that it refers to "Head Ambassador Program" again.

We need a People (contributor) program for all Polkadot community members, and as part of that we can have an Ambassador Program (if needed), and a tiny bit of that could be the Head Ambassadors. But, for some reason, it is the heads themselves that are now constantly in focus.

Close this program for good. Global restart needed. Greed is Sin!