The Steward WG Transformation proposal for community Advice Process


This proposal describes organizational changes to the Stewards WG that aims increase accountability for Stewards, establish Commons governance as a focal point and create reliable feedback loops from stakeholders, experts in our ecosystem, previous Stewards and the wider community.

This is a directional proposal. Which is to say that here we seek community sentiment on the direction. Following positive signaling, the next step will be to nominate the Commons Stewards who will further define a plan for Steward WG transformation including a follow-up evaluation after 6 months of the transformation.

Provide as much information as possible about your idea.

It will be helpful to start with some historical context. At the end of 2020, when the Stewards WG formed, the TEC was actively community building and collectively focused on a shared goal: to prepare for and ensure a successful Hatch. That took about 8 months. Our next shared goal was the Commons Upgrade, which turned TEC into a Commons and made $TEC available via an Augmented Bonding Curve and collective stewardship of the common pool funds possible using Conviction Voting. We deployed at the start of this year, about 5 months after the Hatch.

Over the history of the TEC, there have been 21 extraordinary individuals who have, as Stewards, demonstrated their care for our community and mission. We would not be where we are today without each of them. This WG has had some minor changes over time but this is the first proposal of a more significant organizational change, specifically to distinct Stewardship into categories and to create an advisory team and steward alumni group for advise and guidance.

This proposal came about because of the lack of support for the second funding proposal. The first funding proposal covered a small stipend for Stewards and compensation for WG Coordinators (for their role in transversal coordination across all WGs). The second funding proposal was the same and did not receive wide support. It was withdrawn to re-evaluate both compensation for Stewards and the most important question: if we were to form a Stewards WG today what would that look like? What are the stewarding needs of TEC today as a fully operational Commons?

In reviewing our Stewards WG Manifesto, I can say we succeeded in what we intended to achieve but now that we stand at 14 Stewards and 11 Working Groups. We are no longer in a build phase but in an operational one and adjustments should be made to improve focus, coordination and accountability within our stewardship.

Until now, stewardship was associated with a specific work stream, usually associated with a specific Working Group. As the number of working groups grew, so too did the number of Stewards. This is not necessarily negative but requires thoughtful adjustments after we have scaled so much in the last year and a half.


  • Distinct Commons stewardship from Working Group stewardship.
  • Bring greater accountability for Stewards with clear responsibilities.
  • Create and/or maintain dependable feedback loops with all Stewards and community.
  • Create feedback loop with Advisory team for advice from experts and stakeholders not in our day-to-day.
  • Maintain the collective knowledge of our previous Stewards.
  • Prioritize and advocate for funding mission critical proposals.

There would be these 5 groups to provide support and governance of our Commons

  • Working Group Stewards
  • Commons Stewards
  • Community
  • Advisory team
  • Steward alumni

→ Responsibilities

Working Group Stewards Commons Stewards Advisory Team Stewards Alumni
Purpose To steward individual Working Group work streams. Focused on workstreams related to health and success of the Commons. To bring experience, expertise and external perspective to help Stewards solve complex problems. Retain the knowledge and wisdom of past Stewards.
Responsibilities - Set quarterly objectives for the WG
- Facilitate WG meetings
- Upkeep the WG Manifesto
- Coordinate WG projects and tasks
- Coordinate WG contributors
- Accountable for WG roadmap
- Accountable for WG budgeting
- Present WG updates in the Community Call
- Participate in the bi-weekly Stewards Council in order to stay aligned with all Stewards and the MVV of the TEC.
- Represent the TEC
- Be role model of TEC Mission, Vision and Values
- Set quarterly objectives for Commons Stewards WG
- Participate in weekly (or bi-weekly) sync
- Participate in bi-weekly (or monthly) Council
- Participate in Scrum events (Sprint planning and retrospective)
- Build feedback loops between entire Stewardship and keep it tight
- Create feedback loops between Stewards and Advisory Team and Steward alumni
- Represent the TEC
- Be role model of TEC Mission, Vision and Values
- Participate in monthly or bi-monthly advisory calls
- Provide strategic advise on direction and planning
- Bring specific expertise to the table
- Bring your outside perspective
- Support TEC Stewards
- Advocate for the TEC
Participation is optional.
This will start as a TG or Discord DM group.
Nomination process The WG funding proposal should include the Steward as well as other contributors. In this way, it is the community that determined whether to continue or end funding for the WG itself. To first create this, it will be determined by existing Stewards.
On and offboarding process should be published as part of an updated manifesto.
Can be nominated by anyone in the community.
Selection must be done by Commons Stewards who would best understand the expertise needed in this team.
Includes all current and previous Stewards.
Compensation Funded by their WG Funded by Stewards WG
Compensated in TEC
Funded by Stewards WG
Compensated in TEC
Estimated time commitment Determined by WG 30+ hours per week 2 hours per month None
Group size Recommend 1 Steward per WG.
In rare cases, 2.
Recommend 3-5 Recommend 4-6 N/A

→ The meeting cadence should eventually be determined by the Stewards themselves but here is an example of what a new meeting cadence could look like:

Working Group sync Stewards WG sync Stewards Council sync Advisory call Community call Steward Alumni call
Cadence Weekly or bi-weekly (depends on WG needs) Weekly or bi-weekly Every other week Once a month Weekly (or bi-weekly?) Ad hoc
Purpose To continue the work needed to achieve the goals of that WG. To focus on the health and success of the commons. So, specific challenges of the Commons especially w.r.t. sustainability and success, to raise and mitigate risks, to determine/measure quarterly OKRs.

Essentially, this would be the Stewards WG sync. While remaining open to all, it will not be obligatory for all Stewards to attend.
To have a reliable space (twice a month) where all Stewards come together. In this space, Stewards raise and address any challenges and work out solutions together.

To share planning and challenges with a trusted group of stakeholders and experts in our ecosystem in order to have pertinent and timely feedback. To present to the community what we have achieved since the last community call.
Required WG Steward Commons Stewards WG & Commons Stewards Advisors & Commons Stewards WG & Commons Stewards

→Visually, this:

→ Advice Process on the topic of Steward WG transformation

WG Advice Process was done using, in a Miro board exercise during a Stewards’ Council, and lots of individual and group feedback.

1. Here are the main insights gained through the “Challenging our assumptions about Stewardship in the TEC” which was shared with all Stewards.

Over 90% agreed:

  • Stewards should be compensated for their responsibilities in the TEC.
  • The collective intelligence of our current 15 Stewards should not be lost in the transformation of the Stewards WG.
  • Even Stewards who focus on just one working group should retain some responsibilities for the health of the TEC’s overall mission, culture, and community.

Between 80-90% agreed

  • There are new models for ensuring working group coordination that could work as well, or better, than what we have today.
  • The TEC should create an advisory board comprised of subject matter experts with wide perspective outside of the TEC. This will help to support Stewards making the best decisions possible.

Between 70-80% agreed:

  • We should differentiate the Stewards who have a high level overview about what is going on across multiple core groups of the TEC and Stewards who are focused entirely on one Working Group.
  • The Stewards WG should be transformed to meet budget and needs of the TEC as it is today versus when the Stewards WG was first formed.
  • The current criteria for stewardship, “active and present, servant leader, in the know”, is inadequate. We should have more specificity of responsibilities and accountability for those who are not able to meet their commitments.
  • As long as the TEC has no revenue coming in, the Stewards WG funding should be extremely lean. Only mission critical funding should be included.
  • Advisors should be selected by $TEC token holders not just the Stewards.

2. Here are the results of Advice Process via a Miro board exercise in the Stewards’ Council.

How is it relevant to the TEC mission, vision and values?

This reorganization of the Stewards WG will allow for greater focus on the health and success of the TEC and our mission and greater accountability for Stewards. It will also help bring in expert advise to help solve complex challenges as they arise.

Who is going to be affected by what you’re proposing?

Stewardship is a service that we provide to the community. The current Stewards will be affected, and the community who should benefit from this type of stewardship transformation.

Who has expertise in this topic and could advise your process?

The Stewards as well as stakeholders and community members that have experience and perspective to share.

What type of proposal is this?

  1. Snapshot (cultural)

The cadence section brings so much clarity, as well as the responsibilities.

I think it would make our understanding of our “coordination” layer better for everyone. Would love to see a section for “review”, meaning how this proposal will have a in-place checking, to make sure that it’s being executed correctly, of it needs changes or improvements in, let’s say 3 months?

Thanks for putting this up.


Proposal is live on snapshot here (thank you, @natesuits!): Snapshot