Testing the waters for dev/design interest in FDI pt 2

[ this post is being made understanding that FDI pt 1 is still under development ]

TLDR i’ve been getting a lot of interest from other existing/tba DAOs around using FDI as the foundation for their own DAO interfaces. The most common question I get is – when will proposal creation get rolled out?

Looking at how the current repo is setup, it feels possible that an isolated proposal creation sprint build on top of FDI (once pt1 is released) – leveraging the rcently open sourced nouns.build proposal creation flow – could be conducted in a relatively quick manner (2-3 weeks? I imagine it would need designs cc @losingmyego, check out the recently released nouns build figmas) and potentially be very valuable to PA to:

  1. further improve our own interface and eliminate our dependency on nouns.build
  2. entrench Flexible as the default template repo when creating a DAO website – which should theoretically provide value back to PA members via agency-esque external dao contract opportunities + increased technological legitmacy for our network

Curious what others have to say about this + what interest there would be to take this project on (obviously dependent p1 getting finished first + securing funding for pt 2 of this workflow)

ccing some devs: @salief @E-Rick @gainor @math77 @neatonk

ccing some designers: @losingmyego @junghwan

ccing some educators: @valcoholics @colomborkrdz @projectmehari @estmcmxci


Thanks for the links never knew the figma was opened up as well …but let’s abolish saying 2 weeks as a guesstimate, it’s got me in a chokehold as well.

1 Like

i stand by 2 weeks being an appropriate estimate for a focused proposal creation build if 2-3 ppl are involved working ~30 hours a week on it

imagine we’d need somewhere around 7-12 eth to fund it depending on the team (based on previous PA funding amounts – which is helpful as a baseline but not necessarily something that needs to be held as precedent)

but generally speaking – i agree with your sentiment

Replying to the increased capacity part, that is very fair. Trying to phrase my question right but I want more details on the moving away from their proposal flow because new to the agency realm, would you say you are proposing desconstructing the flow and building more opinionated version (and will that opinion be the “public assembly opinion”)

  • are we breaking it, extending it, or “relieving it from it’s job” from a design and/or protocol level

or is this thread a space to talk about the specifc personality of this proposal flow as opposed to (example) how aragon protocol deals with proposals

1 Like

the rlly basic response is PA/its members are already missing out on agency-esque opportunities because our dao interface template (which has not even been released yet) does not support proposal creation flow – which other teams running/starting daos view as essential in the interfaces they are creating (which I agree with)

a follow up sprint would address that problem for own interface, as well as opening the door for more revenue opportunities for PA/its members since we;ll be the maintainers of that repo and have the most context/experience on how it works

i wouldnt say this is related to nouns.build in terms of breaking/extending it. nouns.build is an aggregator for all daos which is great, but was never meant to be the place where daos can foster their own unique environments – which is what led to the originall FDI proposal in the first place

My take is that the opinionated Public Assembly version is a hyper minimal proposal creator that will just slot into FDI as a complete package. I’d be interested in doing a small design sprint, as it seems the scope is much smaller than FDI.

1 Like

i would also poiint out the prop creation flow on nouns.build is extremely good as is. so I imagine own version of it would be more focused on making an implementation thats easier to work with (bettter documentation, simpler code base, more modular, etc.) as opposed to improving on it

1 Like

I see the vision and I see already where more things can be considered. For docs though are you looking for a architecture overview for one monorepo “Flexible” and is this ask like saying just add “proposal flow diagram sketched out as a requirement”

1 Like

ideally docs would just be another section added to the docs in dev for Flexible. they could touch on things like how to customize whatever gets built, how to extract the components/functionality into ur own app, how general proposal/transaction building actually works (I think this would be a really helpful piece), etc

judging from capacity requirements on previous builds, I imagine one member of the build teams role could be: 1) documentation 2) DX 3) product marketing/communications

We have features for proposal creation slotted into the v2 of Flexible DAO Interfaces. The plan was to look for further funding to continue the build to include that and other features. Is that the same thing as this? (Thinking about how to delineate getting funding for a second build, vs. a micro segment of a build)

yes !! and to figure out who would be involved in those efforts (acknowledging the ppl doing the current build may/may not want to continue)

would also suggest that prop creation is prob the highest priority thing to follow up on

May suggest we ask the team members working on it to solidify their thoughts on continuing a second sprint and then fill in the gaps where needed

yes – consider me tagging all of yall as me asking lol

1 Like

im actually going to move this convo to another channel because the settings for this channel is actually only for those on the original prop to be able to reply

  • edit post moved