Background:
Currently, there is a significant time lag between an initial proposal in a DAO discussion and passing a snapshot vote. Inevitably, I believe that true colors of community protection (by voting for own interests which are pari passu with the community) will be able to control rogue actions in Snapshot.
Nomination or Qualification of Delegates to Fast Track item to RFC:
Certain community members should be able to raise a topic directly to RFC level if such persons want to exercise such option. This may be their own proposal, or a DAO Discussion item proposed by another community member.
I would propose a level of meritocracy for this privilege, where such persons who have this option are those who after the original RQ in March, have posted a WIP that has received at least a 35% positive or negative or choice vote (thus all WIPs qualify currently). I believe that these persons all have the proper discretion to exercise a fast track option on a given topic.
Fast track options can be stripped by a DAO vote for a individual or be relinquished by such individual.
Proposed New Timeline and Rules for Proposals
Dao Discussion to RFC
Minimum Time: 24 hours.
Minimum Views: An average of previous DD views which turned into RFC * discount percent factor tbd
MOD Discretion to allow/not allow to RFC: Allowed (not allow is subject to RFC Fast Track veto)
Fast Track/Auto “Upgrade”: Allows if sponsored by Fast Track Delegates.
RFC to WIP:
Minimum Time: 24 hours.
Minimum Views: An average of previous RFC views (where RFC became a WIP) * discount percent factor tbd
MOD Discretion to allow/not allow to RFC: Only if Minimum View threshold is not met to allow.
WIP to Snapshot:
Time between WIP Posting and Snapshot: I propose to reduce this time from 4 days to 24 hours.
Snapshot Voting Length: I propose to reduce this time from 7 days to 4 days.
This should reduce the roughly minimum time from a DD 1 day + RFC 1 day + WIP 5 days to 7 days.
Currently, the minimum span between DD and Snapshot Conclusion I would guess is around 17 days or so.
Again, appreciate all the hard work you’ve put into all these proposals and revamping governance on WL. I think the doxxing aspect is well thought…its important to establish potential winning candidate backgrounds and identities before they get approved and voted in by the DAO.
I’m not sure I see so much difference between DAO discussions and RFCs. Essentially, when an RFC is proposed, we have time there to discuss and suggest improvements and reform the RFC into what it needs to be to move forward to WIP.
Would it also just save time if we had everything entering at RFC level, and the inactive ones just die off like DAO discussions, the gems move forward to WIP?
I think the TM election process should probably be a separate conversation too. Especially if it follows its own timeframes. Topics like mandatory doxx are definitly out of scope in terms of “DD/RFC/WIP process”.
As for the timeline changes the folks from Wonderland 2.0 had made a pretty good attempt not too long ago (before Governance season). I think we could gather a lot from that or even reopen that discussion.
@Diazalon the main distinction between the DD and RFC is that the DD is more of your sales pitch to see if people are interested and if they are, then you move on with a more detailed proposal.
One of the main issue with moving directly to RFC is that or RFC process is currently disfunctional.
While the template has a note to say its a work in progress, people don’t go back to look at the changes. So having two different steps allows for a better way to evaluate the changes compared to if we were to skip the DD.
Another issue is that if we were to announce every DD like we do for RFCs, there would be a lot of notifications all the time. There are ways to work around this of course, but some proposals are just not fleshed out enough to ping 50 000 people
The main issue at hand here is a swifter application of these processes if need be - especially in light that crucial decision making which ultimately carry implication for timely (quick) decisions.
Generally, I believe that over time, actions should be less and less discretionary and are governed by DAO - but this requires also swift decision making and some level of upgraded diversified community leadership (over time).
If I read this correctly I’d be against this based on the fact former TMs could FastTrack things potentially not in the daos best interest and could present a conflict of interest which would not be acceptable imo. I’m of the belief previous TMs shouldn’t be allowed any FastTrack paths. This will help insure transparency for more investors and avoid negative sentiment about potential underlying intentions.
I’d thought about this, and such powers can be stripped by vote of such persons.
Quite frankly, I’d rather not exercise this power; only when I’d believe that not using such a action would be detrimental to the DAO. I think Sifu would think the same. For example, if a community feels that a there is a material risk that needs to be eliminated from the portfolio held by the treasury. Its not always that the current TM would be agree with the community on such matter. You would need another or couple expert opinions on such matters.
We can add that this can be excercised for only risk reduction related proposals. While something can be fast tracked, the community still needs to vote on the matter.
We can incorporate candidates then for fast tracking to be voted in? That also works that its not just bestowed on a particular person due to past experience or post here.
Yeah, thats fine. Hence why there’s a board here to edit this along the way!
Fast Track Exemptions:
New Investment Proposals
New business / JV / tie up ideas
Additional Personnel (To be clear - for personnel only time can be used, is that a vacancy can create a operational risk to the DAO).
For example, I’d likely Fast Track currently:
A. No Rebases
B. Appointment of 1 Treasury Operator (For multi-sig risk hedging)
C. Multi-Sig Additions (See above)
D. Contingent on B., I may have requested the TM DD to RFC to have been fast tracked by a day or two than what it currently was.
On top of that, each Fast Tracker can have say 1 Fast Track option per quarter for example. Similar to that Golden Buzzer in AGT.
Its really meant to be an option for some emergency-like measure. The fast track can’t send something to a WIP (and already on the TMP DD, mentions some direct WIP allowance).
Things like no rebase are an fundamental change to the core of the protocol. Things like that should never be fast tracked in my opinion.
Adding someone to the multisig is the same unless in case an emergency and/or security reasons, but even then. Being able to fast track someone on a multisig is a security issue on its own.
We definitely need proper and clear boundaries to avoid potential loopholes.
I miss understood that part. That said, fast tracking a process that already has no minimum makes little sense to me. I think establishing the requirements to be eligible go from one to another makes more sense.
The only time frames in the framework are 4 for WIP 7 for Snapshot. So minimum could be 13 days if we allow for 24h at DD and RFC.
We need to be careful to not create fast tracking mechanism because we think the process is too long when the process is normally not the cause of the delays, but rather the lack of engagement from the community. Otherwise, we will end up with the same problems regardless and will be pushing more proposals with even less input from the community.
Taking SIFU’s proposal as an example. It was posted as DD, got immediate support, was approved for RFC when it was submitted and same for the WIP with very minimal delays. The issue is that most proposal are not as clear/cut simple at Sifu’s. But also, if it would have been anyone else, it would not have been that simple either. Sifu’s proposal was very limited in details but it was essentially voted based on trust.
Fast tracking a process that already has no minimum makes little sense to me. Especially when we are not always in control of the delay. I think establishing the requirements to be eligible go from one to another or reducing some of the timeframes like how long a vote is makes more sense.
I agree with Nal that we definitely don’t want to start jamming through WIP’s without sufficient community engagement. But I also think there are likely to be some scenarios in which an important proposal doesn’t necessarily garner a lot of community engagement, and can fester around, which is not desirable. I am thinking of elections of multisig signers, or other less newsworthy WIPs. Sky’s proposal would be beneficial here.
That being said, there is some possibility for abuse with Sky’s proposal, as some previously trusted member of the community who has successfully passed WIP’s, could ally with other members to pass a malicious WIP during a period of low engagement (like the summer holidays). However, this seems to be addressed by the mod discretion provision, but mod discretion is quite subjective. Perhaps having more clear guidelines about what types of proposals CANNOT be passed under this framework would alleviate these concerns.
I would like to note that the fast track is only from the Dao Discussion to RFC.
RFC to WIP would still carry on standard governance procedure. Therefore, the controls are still there. This is rather to assist in filtering Dao Discussions, and moving a worthy discussion in front of a wider audience.
Basically, every DAO is faced with lower engagement, and this is to allow for a deadlock avoidance (likely from apathy) at the lower level of a proposal.
The reality is, there is going to be much lower community engagement! This is particular somewhat to WL, sure - as it has a large unexpected leadership vacuum. But this is a problem across all DAOs as well.
If there is material worry that as a collective here in this DAO - that people are too stupid and too lazy to be able to voice and vote over maliciously intended WIPs - then we should call it a day, and look to “rage quit” this whole thing and move on.
