As the previous post was just written out of impulse I feel I need to elaborate and modify it a little.
First I'd like to explain why some modifications to communication tools could be beneficial.
First of all I noticed that there are many threads here touching different areas of IT governance of Ethereum and DAO projects. But all of them are just scattered around. No consistent strategy can be worked out of them, as they appear, live short and vanish somewhere deep in this forum intestines.
As it seems to me that without a sort of crowd governance the development of both projects will remain chaotic and prone to errors, a kind of structure would be needed to direct efforts.
Probably most of people around here never heard of Cobit. It can be downloaded here. This document is an effect of years of experience powered by events sometimes far more costly than the recent hack.
It defines a general scheme of IT governance that if followed gives three benefits:
- it eases the whole process of software lifecycle giving some no brainer steps to follow;
- if the above steps are followed gives insight which other processes are directly connected to each step;
- last but not least it gives ready control objectives that should be applied to each step taken, thus easing control of the whole lifecycle.
As you may see in this document everything starts with IT strategic plan. I doubt such document exists, but could be created for both Ethereum and DAO. I assume that most of people around see no need for such paper work.
Let me explain, why it can be important. Companies managers usually are neither geniuses nor IT masters. Mostly their only evolutionary adaptation to be managers is being more psychopathic than the rest of society that makes them better in keeping subordinates on a leash. Thus they must be informed somehow what is to be achieved with the IT project in question, what limitations must be imposed, what criteria met, how it works in general, etc. This enables them to guard implementation and ask questions - without it they would have no idea what questions can be asked.
In DAO case management is distributed. Many people have very faint idea about how all works, what is discussed among those more tech savvy, what objectives should be achieved. They cannot contribute to any constructive discuss (even if they could have some brilliant ideas) just because they don't know what it is all about.
But IT strategic plan is only a small part of the whole scheme. I won't list all of them here - it makes no sense to write Cobit summary now.
The crucial point here is to enable all "managers" of both projects to have deeper insight and understanding of everything that is going on. Using corporate tools isn't needed, it's just an example how big organizations deal with being composed of rather random people.
While there are many steps to be taken in different areas the most fundamental in my opinion is communication.
Many times I raised concerns about communication deficiencies. I still think, that besides being still very underdeveloped tool daohub serves best in terms of giving most structured conversation playground. Other solutions with flows of thoughts without any regularity are just useless for such big number of people. Forums have deficiencies too, but there is no reason not to attach live chat to them as an auxiliary tool (it would be nice even to have slack flowing aside).
I think that adding sticky "mother threads" or at least some new tags could be the first step to introduce some order into discuss.
However, I wouldn't limit changes to this. My suggestion is to borrow what applicable from Cobit structure or invent own structure that covers also social and alike matters and give posters possibility to attach their posts to appropriate areas.
What can follow is a possibility to assess to what extent an area is covered, what is the state of works over certain issues. Then it would be possible to output results even in graphic form. It would give "managers" possibility to ask questions. Out of scores of different areas it will be immediately visible that some areas aren't covered at all or not partly. For instance, only part of works over contract structure would be easy to spot. (additional note: in cases like contract structure it should be required to supply source code line numbers or code itself that was subject of analysis. This way results of review can later be corroborated by others. More, it would be visible what was skipped).
I don't insist to apply this particular scheme. Nor the one mentioned in my first post. My stance is that there should be a tool that serves distributed management better then tools tried since. And I think daohub requires less changes than other tools in this regard.
I hope others will speak and maybe suggest better solution. It would be nice to see here admins too to know whether any changes proposed by me or others have chances to be implemented.