Thank you, @NikoG, for the detailed and thoughtful proposal. While I agree with the need of a more structured framework for Regional HUBs I don;t think this proposal is the best way to solve the problems higlighted in Celo Regional DAOs: A Retrospective on 2024 and I’d like to raise some concerns similar to the ones raised by @Joan_DeRB and share alternative suggestions for consideration.
Coordinator Hub as a Potential Bottleneck
The concept of a Coordinator Hub has merit in aligning efforts, but I’m concerned it could become a centralized bottleneck, limiting flexibility and slowing decision-making. Why is a centralized Coordinator Hub necessary? Would it not be more efficient to have a self-managed committee formed by representatives from each Regional Hub? This decentralized approach would ensure that all Hubs have an equal voice and foster greater collaboration without over-reliance on a single entity.
Program Management Role
The proposal mentions a Program Management position. Could you clarify who is being considered for this role and how much the monthly cost would be?
I’m not convinced this role is necessary. If the Coordinator Hub were replaced with a self-managed committee, the Program Management tasks could be distributed among the committee members or absorbed into existing Hub structures. This would reduce overhead costs and further decentralize operations.
Equal Representation for All Hubs
The differentiation between “big regional hubs” and “small country hubs” may unintentionally create hierarchies and discourage smaller regions. I propose that every Hub, regardless of size, should have equal voting power. Each Hub should be valued equally, and decisions should reflect the collective will of all regions without bias.
Decentralizing the Ambassador Program
Centralizing the Ambassador Program under the Coordinator Hub may reduce adaptability and grassroots effectiveness. Instead, why not assign an Ambassador budget directly to each Regional Hub? This would allow Hubs to tailor ambassador activities to local contexts and priorities. A sustainable model could involve integrating Ambassador funding into the overall Hub budgets, with each proposal allocating, for example, 10% for Ambassador-related tasks. This ensures localized impact and accountability without unnecessary central oversight.
Balancing Global Goals and Regional Autonomy
While standardizing metrics and processes is essential, it’s equally important to maintain regional creativity and adaptability. We should focus on tools and frameworks that enable collaboration without imposing unnecessary constraints.
HUB Support Budget
Could you provide more clarity on what the HUB Support Budget is intended for? What specific activities, tools, or initiatives would this budget cover? Is it for operational support, capacity-building, or something else? Without a detailed breakdown, it’s hard to evaluate whether this is necessary or if these resources could be directly allocated to the Hubs themselves for greater efficiency and impact.
Last I would like to call all Regional DAO or HUBs leads or members to leave their feedback here @CeloArabia @CeloAfricaDAO @celomexico @CeloColombiano @CeLatam @Vow @parnaigon @Numpon @cristpereirag @MilaRioja @martinvol @GerryAlvrz @hope @Aliu @allanlee @Baale7 @chuta @mbarbosa @cryptodayph @maximpact @nauman @minmaxi @aoencrypted @Ximemonclou @londo maybe missing someones… feel free to tag them…