Quorum Requirement: A minimum of 50% of existing members of the Governance allowlist must comment on the proposal.
I am not loving replacing the forum vote with this comment requirement. First, it gives the existing members veto power. Second, as it just requires comments a comment that is meant to encourage future discussion or disagree with the proposal.
We are hoping to avoid stalling at the forum stage. We did not want to reduce the forum voting quorum because of possible sybil attacks on the forum votes.
I suggest we move to a Discord vote with a reduced quorum. The Discord vote will be protected by the membership token-gating, ensuring only members are voting. This will let us reduce the voting requirement and move quickly.
The poll can be created at the same time as the forum posting and run for 5 days. This will add no time to the new process.
Thanks for the feedback and suggestion. Hearing the concerns. For context, the approach was inspired by Gitcoinâs approach.
I donât believe moving the vote from one place to another is an answer. Core to these suggested changes is the view that asking people to vote on the same things twice feels like a bad UX for members who actually want to participate.
Regardless of where or how those votes are done. cc @Erik_Knobl@luan
In current wording, they collectively have a veto, but no single person does. So long as > 50% (imagine weâd make this a number as the list grows) have shared their views, all it needs is one of these people to support it for it to be elevated. This is basically how budgets work currently although reading back itâs not totally clear here this was the intention. Will amend.
As more people join this group, that power gets decentralised relatively quickly into the hands of folks whoâve contributed which gives us a nice path to decentralising leadership whilst maintaining Sybil resistance.
Think itâs important we have somewhere that âif you submit a proposal that asks the foundation directors to break the law, it will be rejectedâ - is there another place youâd suggest we have it?
It makes me think, though⌠if there is a possibility of the lawâs being broken, checking that after the vote might not make the most sense . I am unsure exactly how to handle this but I will stew on it and take a look at other Governance structures and would love any ideas!
@Bobbay would be good to know how the orgâs youâre a delegate in handle this
I feel we need people engaging and sharing their views, good or bad, and once enough people who have contributed a lot (enough $CODE to be on the allowlist) have shared their views, itâs OK to go to a vote. I donât feel any arbitrary rules would help, tbh. I would prefer to see more stuff get to snapshot and be rejected than less stuff, and it all gets accepted as feels healthier for Governance.
I would suggest more definition on what a âcommentâ is. Should they clearly endorse/reject the proposal? Asking for clarification counts? A neutral comment counts?
Otherwise, yes, I agree with the overall proposal.
Iâm leaning towards not putting any specific requirements into the comments for a few reasons:
as the DAO continues to decentralise, my hypothesis is how much someone participates correlates quite strongly to how much value people place on their comments/opinions. feels more natural to let people engage how they want, and then members can judge based on that. suspect this will become more important if/when we introduce delegation.
we also donât know the answers to what is right and what is wrong. a primary goal for this proposal is to speed up Governance and get us to do it more. the hypothesis here is the more rules there are, the fewer folks will participate
this approach IMHO encourage people who want to influence to think freely and get involved in governance, campaign for their own ideas/suggestions/changes in their own way
Ofc interested in seeing what some criteria here might look like if folks have ideas
I just view our DAO as very different than Gitcoin - itâs formation, financial control, etc. And thus the governance process should reflect that.
A smaller quorum vote that allows DAO members to control what moves forward and what doesnât seems more democratic. I donât necessarily buy itâs a bad UX if we have users opt-in to the role that notifies users of a pre-vote.
I do think if we keep it as proposed with the comments, itâs still good and an improvement on the current process.
I was thinking this was already ratified through the foundation acceptance, so no need to list it other places. The process will be followed regardless.
Completely agree mate. The next thing Iâm working through is a new operating model that replaces the current budget process with something that sets a much higher bar but empowers people further and removes commercial concerns from the day-to-day DAO coordination and Governance challenges so folks can more freely create value, some of which will flow back to the DAO to be re-allocated by Governance.
Opt-in notifications is a good solution atm, as long as we donât request any minimum amount of votes, just a positive/negative result.
We may also find more engagement/discussion of proposals in Discord. Iâm open to try it.
Aiming to elevate this to a forum vote tomorrow. If anyone has any final thoughts would appreciate them before the last edit
Expect this is going to need a concerted effort to pass 100 votes on the forum (a large reason I think this proposal is an important step for us to move faster with Govenance).
I donât believe giving power to comments will provide the improvement you are hoping for unless those comments are from a selected amount of people I.e. budget stewards, core d_d people, D_D council.
Who are the governance allow listed members?
I like that we are removing the forum vote though. Itâs a big step forward and this image is a good depiction(ty @kempsterrrr ) of what we should aim for, but ill have more context once I know how these gov members are
Thanks for the quick reply!! Re Governance allow list
This is not really about giving power to comments. What is being suggested in once > 50% of folks already recognised by the DAO via $CODE allocation have shared their views, greenlight light for another to move to snapshot - regardless of if comments are good/bad.
vote really needs to go up tomorrow looking at timelines otherwise weâre going to be hard blocked to move anything in Jan as we wont be able to pass this during the holidays IMHO.
(who is 0x4e8AD3c90f026E4d034b81BA0e1A929E77D80b36 in the allow-list?)
What happens if those members just ignore the DDIP? If I have a proposal, ping those members, and they just donât post? What happens if the majority of members become inactive?
Good question. I mentioned in one of the comments above as this list grows weâd probably wont to make it a number rather than a % (or reduce the %) as expecting that many people to stay on top of Governance is a big ask.
. I am unsure exactly how to handle this but I will stew on it and take a look at other Governance structures and would love any ideas!
?
