Protocol X: Contributor Onboarding Research

Thank you for the opportunity to work on this project. It has been interesting and illuminating, both in terms of understanding Protocol X and one implementation of the DAO model, but also as a comparison to literature in organizational behavior describing the cooperative movement of the 1970's, which seems to have some parallels to the growing pains that Protocol X appears to be facing. Please let me know if you want to be directed to some articles that could point out interesting similarities.

I've separated the summary below into three parts. The first part is aggregate, anonymized, summarized data from the interviews. The second part is some of my thoughts on how to synthesize that data, and the third part is some recommendations.

This includes some observations and recommendations on how to structure contributor work, as this work should likely be an important part of selecting who is included into a privileged contributor class.

Findings

By and large, the most common, most repeated critique of Protocol X's privileged contributor onboarding process was a lack of both transparency and structure. Every person I talked to wanted to be a privileged contributor, some simply because they were excited about Protocol X or specific projects they were involved with in Protocol X, and felt that being a privileged contributor would help the organization grow and thrive. However, few people understood the actual details of becoming or being a privileged contributor, and how they were supposed to work and behave in order to enter into a privileged contributors class. No one even seemed to know when the next privileged contributors class would begin, which many identified as stressful. Interviewed participants worried that they were working on projects that would go unnoticed or would be passed over, and that their work would not "count" in terms of becoming recognized for a spot in the next privileged contributors class.

All people interviewed found it very hard to find work on their own when they first joined, and while people were welcoming, newcomers could find no obvious way for people to contribute until an established member of the organization specifically reached out to them and pointed out a place for them to work within Protocol X.

Everyone interviewed also pointed out that, once they found work, this work had a social component that they valued, whether this be guidance from a mentor, or valuable and productive peer relationships. This social work was identified by all interviewed as the time when everything "clicked" with Protocol X, and they felt like they had a home here.

A few candidates tried to take initiative on a project, and felt that their work was unimportant, or related to a "dead end" project, which they found highly discouraging and gave a bad initial experience with Protocol X.

Because the privileged contributor onboarding process is not seen to be transparent, or codified, there are some worries about "favorites" being chosen, regardless of work quality.

The lack of transparency and codification was identified to be a larger structural issue in Protocol X. Lack of codification and transparency identified in general Protocol X work processes, such as document permissions, organizational branding and values, how proposals were selected to be voted on at the privileged contributors level, and the actual organizational structure of Protocol X as a whole.

New contributors found the process for requesting work confusing, and did not know of the entirety of projects going on. The resources available in this effort are the threads on discord and weekly meetings, which were identified as insufficient. Contributors have trouble understanding how to find work that matches their skills and interests, which they perceive as being necessary to be considered for a spot in the privileged contributor class.

Some, especially those newer to DAO work, found "being just thrown in" and "being encouraged to just take initiative" to be unsettling, and identified that having some social guardrails to make them feel more comfortable would have been helpful.

Thoughts

Problems identified with the privileged contributor onboarding process are symptomatic of inefficiencies in the larger structure of the organization. I think it is a mistake to treat the affiliate track process as separate from other Protocol X organizational structures. Protocol X appears to be suffering from growing pains that are common among all organizations as they get bigger, web3 or otherwise. Creating structure in growing organizations is highly useful so that work is not replicated, key areas of growth are identified and developed, and everyone in the organization can see how they can contribute to their highest potential.

I wonder if there is some confusion between the concepts of structure and hierarchy (which partially includes permission) in Protocol X, particularly around workflow. Structure and hierarchy are not synonyms. I would argue that a lack of structure often defaults to a hierarchical relationship, simply because we were all socialized in hierarchical work environments and we default to what we know. Without structure, privileged contributors will be chosen not based on the work that they can do, but rather what work the people in power see. This leaves the process to be biased by identity dynamics, what projects a contributor is already doing work for, etc. It is obvious that there is actually a complex, informal structure in Protocol X, and codifying it can allow Protocol X to make conscious, strategic choices about how to do its work. I believe that the uncertainty and lack of definition around the privileged contributors onboarding process is symptomatic of a larger uncertainty and lack of definition of the Protocol X structure at large.

The most important issue brought up with the affiliate process is transparency, both in terms of dates, process, requirements, but also in the dynamics of the selection process. Many respondents were worried about nepotism, not knowing how to work effectively to increase their chances of becoming a privileged contributor, and otherwise worrying about how to become "noticed".

The way that contributors become involved with the actual social work of Protocol X is critical to the privileged contributor onboarding process. Having a clear work onboarding process is important for new collaborator retention, gaining meaningful work from people that are interested in Protocol X, and being able to judge privileged contributors' work to make effective decisions about who should enter the next privileged contributor class. It appears that Protocol X is very good at welcoming people, and very inconsistent at including new contributors in work, regardless of the skills or "value" of the contributor. When thinking about how to generate social interactions, I'd personally be more drawn to thinking about things in terms of networks, as opposed to dyads.

It is likely that groups that have been socialized to "take privilege" tend to feel more comfortable in Protocol X. This would largely be members who are male and who are in the privileged racial group in their home country, and those members who are from countries where independent work is more valued. This could provide roadblocks into Protocol X from members of certain countries and identities. It is important to note that people new to Protocol X who would be on the higher end of privilege and feeling comfortable with independent work still found the process of starting work with Protocol X jarring. Finding a way to help people transition into this type of work would likely help retention with new contributors of all backgrounds.

Recommendations

The privileged contributor onboarding process needs to be more transparent, with clearer criteria as to what potential privileged contributors are being judged by. A lack of transparency in the privileged contributors onboarding process was the largest, most repeated critique in these interviews. Many respondents stated that even if they disagreed with a policy or structure, they wanted it defined so that they could talk about it, understand how they were being judged, understand when the selection process happened, and even decide if they were a good fit for Protocol X at all. I feel that however the privileged contributor onboarding process shapes out, it is important to have clear, easy to access documentation with more detailed (and realistic) information about the process, including dates, the selection process, what would disqualify someone, etc.

The inclusion of non-privileged contributors into social work needs to be a priority of the workflow of Protocol X. This makes a bounty board alone potentially insufficient in creating buy-in and retention among qualified participants, as these tasks are often solo. If Protocol X never gets to see the work of a potential privileged contributor, obviously they cannot be considered for inclusion into a privileged contributors class. There are many ways this can be done. One recommendation is finding large, weakly bound areas that Protocol X needs to grow or refine, and create work groups of contributors around them. These include areas such as product development, branding, document organization, and other "back office work." Assigning a privileged contributor to act in a mentorship capacity in each of these groups would allow for connectivity to the larger organization without overtaxing the privileged contributor. Some activities, such as branding, might require a privileged contributor to take on a coordinating role or require more than one privileged contributor, of course.

The nomination of privileged contributors into a class should include some form of evaluation of contributors' work, preferably anonymously. This allows for candidates to be judged more accurately on what skills they can leverage in service of Protocol X. Adding in some procedural, anonymized work-based criteria where the quality of a candidate's work can be judged prevents both the appearance and practice of nepotism. One possibility is to have each potential member of a privileged contributor's class maintain a portfolio of work that they have done in Protocol X. That work could be anonymized where possible. A group of privileged contributors could then be formed to judge these portfolios, along with a statement or recommendation from a privileged contributor in one or more of the candidates' working groups. Clear rubrics to help in this evaluation would also help standardize this process. Anti-bias training for evaluators may also help in this regard.

A process should begin to more clearly define the values, scope, goals, and organizational structure of Protocol X. Just like any other business growing rapidly, Protocol X needs to spend time to clearly define and understand their work process, organizational structure, values, and scope of work. Until this is done, I believe the privileged contributors onboarding program may have problems. A more thorough understanding of the values of Protocol X also would help inform this process. This should be done in a deeper form than the values placed on the start-here channel, preferably with input and discussion from the community.

Does Protocol X believe that to create better products that serve a wider range of people they need to expand the perspectives, skill sets, and cultural competencies of their privileged contributors? Are there certain sets of cultural norms that Protocol X wants to preserve? Answers to questions like these should guide the design of the privileged contributor track.