IIP-35

IMPLEMENTED

Summary

The purpose of this proposal is to establish a peer & self evaluation process within the Illuvium DAO (“DAO”) to enhance transparency and accountability among council members by providing a mechanism to assess the performance and contributions of each council member during their term. By implementing this evaluation, the DAO can ensure that council members are actively engaged, aligned with the DAO's values and objectives, and accountable to the community.

Objective

The objective of the peer evaluation is to foster transparency and accountability among council members by providing a structured assessment of their performance. This evaluation will enable the DAO to identify areas of strength and improvement, ensure alignment with the DAO's values and objectives, and maintain a high standard of governance within the organization. Peer evaluation can serve as a basis for a vote of no confidence in the event of low scores, in a specific category or in total, among council members The publication of aggregated evaluation scores aims to promote transparency, allowing stakeholders to assess the effectiveness and performance of individual council members.

Implementation

1. Timing: Council members will participate in self and peer evaluations twice during the epoch: once at the 2.5-month interval and again at the 5-month interval. Each member of every sub-council, including the Illuvinati Main Council (“IMC”), shall evaluate the other four members of their respective council as well as themselves.
2. Evaluation Form: The Governance Community Manager (GCM) will distribute an evaluation form (Annex B) comprising various categories for assessment outlined in Annex A. Council members will rate each category on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the lowest score and 5 representing the highest score.
3. Submission: Council members will complete the evaluation form for each of their peers and submit it to the GCM within fourteen (14) calendar days. These evaluation forms will be submitted anonymously, ensuring that the identity of the council members providing feedback remains confidential. Only the Governance Community Manager (GCM) and the Legal department will have access to the evaluation forms and the aggregated scores. This approach ensures the privacy and integrity of the evaluation process, fostering a safe and open environment for council members to provide honest and constructive feedback.
4. Scoring: The sum of scores from all council members in each sub-council, excluding self-evaluation scores, will be calculated and averaged for each category. The sum of average scores divided by the number of categories will equate to the total score for each council member.
5. Verification: Ensuring complete transparency and objectivity, the evaluation form shall be structured to avoid human influence and error, with automated software or programs handling the tabulation results as practicable.
6. Publication: The aggregated evaluation scores, without disclosing individual evaluator identities, will be made publicly available to all stakeholders in a transparent manner within three (3) calendar days from the last day of submission by council members. (see Annex C)
7. Vote of No Confidence: Any council member who achieves an average total score lower than 3 or an average score below 3 in Governance Participation, shall be automatically reviewed by the IMC and could elevate to a Vote of No Confidence process.

Rationale

1. Accountability: The end-of-epoch peer evaluation process holds council members accountable for their performance, fostering a culture of responsibility and dedication to the DAO's mission.
2. Continuous Improvement: By receiving constructive feedback from their peers, council members can identify areas of strength and areas that require improvement, facilitating personal growth and better governance practices.
3. Transparency: Publishing the aggregated evaluation scores provides transparency to stakeholders, allowing them to assess the performance of council members and make informed decisions during future elections.
4. Balanced Evaluation: Weighting the scores based on the role of the evaluator ensures a balanced assessment.
5. Verification: Involving the DAO's legal team in verifying the accuracy of the scores adds an additional layer of credibility and ensures the integrity of the evaluation process.

By implementing the end-of-epoch peer evaluation process, we reinforce the DAO's commitment to transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement. This proposal establishes a robust framework for evaluating council members' performance and enhancing the overall effectiveness of governance within the DAO.

Use Case

Web 2.0 Companies & Organizations utilizing peer evaluation for its board of directors.

Full Text

https://github.com/Rickytan77/IIPs/blob/master/assets/iip-35/IIP-35%20-%20Peer%20%26%20Self%20Evaluation%20for%20Council%20Members.pdf