by 0x7bbea9c18cd0541acab8c19da2b11d0c03faef1c (AlGoreRhythm)
Linked Pre-Proposal
Should the DAO mandate an annual review and update of all governance documents?
Summary
Require that all official DAO governance documents are reviewed and updated annually, with additional updates triggered by any structural change, so the rules governing this DAO are always accurate and accessible.
Abstract
The Decentraland DAO has governance documents that in some cases have not been meaningfully reviewed or updated since inception. The result is documentation describing committees that no longer exist, processes that have changed, and roles that are no longer accurate. The Governance Legislative Tracker, the DAO’s official record of currently applicable decisions, was last updated in May 2024. While the link has since been restored, the content still references the DAO Committee, Revocations Committee, and multiple squads that were deprecated in 2025. Official documentation describes a governance structure that no longer exists.
This Draft Proposal establishes a named review process, a responsible party, defined timelines, and a trigger clause requiring updates whenever a structural change occurs, so the community always has accurate documentation to rely on.
Motivation
Every functioning organization, public or private, traditional or decentralized, maintains its governing documents as living records. Corporations update their bylaws when their structure changes. Nonprofits review their charters annually. Government agencies publish updated procedures when policies change. This is not bureaucratic overhead. It is the minimum standard for any organization that expects its participants to follow rules and processes that are written down and accurate.
The Decentraland DAO currently has no such requirement. Documents may be created when a proposal passes and never touched again. Two specific examples are already confirmed on the public record: the DAO Council’s roles and responsibilities are not documented in any single official maintained source, and the DAO’s community-approved mission and vision statements, voted on through governance in 2024, have never been published in an official maintained DAO document. They passed through governance and were never formally recorded anywhere the community is expected to look.
That is the problem this proposal is designed to fix. Not just discoverability, but the absence of any process to ensure governance decisions are documented, kept current, and maintained by someone accountable for doing so.
These gaps affect every community member who tries to understand how the DAO works, every new participant who reads the documentation and forms an inaccurate picture of the current governance structure, and every accountability conversation that stalls because the rules are not written down anywhere reliable.
An annual review cycle with a structural change trigger is the minimum standard expected of any organization that takes its own governance seriously. This proposal asks the DAO to meet that standard.
Specification
Responsible Party
The DAO Council is responsible for ensuring all official DAO governance documents are reviewed and updated as required. The Council may conduct this work directly or identify and engage someone to do so through whatever process it determines appropriate. The method is the Council’s decision. The accountability is not.
-
Annual Review Cycle
A comprehensive review of all official DAO governance documents must be completed once per calendar year. The review must assess whether each document accurately reflects current processes, roles, responsibilities, and timelines. Any document found to be outdated, incomplete, or inaccurate must be updated before the review cycle closes. A summary of all changes, or confirmation that no changes were needed, must be published to the DAO governance forum upon completion. The first review must be completed within 6 months of the binding proposal passing. -
Trigger Clause
Whenever a structural change occurs, including a new role being created, an existing process modified, a governance body deprecated, or a new mechanism introduced, the relevant documentation must be updated within 30 days of that change taking effect. This ensures documents never fall more than 30 days behind reality and makes the annual review faster and more confirmatory than corrective. -
Minimum Documents in Scope
The following documents must be included in every annual review: -
The Governance Legislative Tracker
-
DAO Council roles, responsibilities, and timeline obligations
-
Documentation describing how governance proposals advance through each stage
-
A summary of the Regenesis Labs mandate and operational scope as it relates to DAO governance
-
Wearable, emote, and creator submission guidelines
-
Any documentation describing DAO governance bodies, committees, or squads
-
The DAO’s approved mission and vision statements, published in an official and accessible location
-
Accountability
For the purposes of this proposal, “ownership" means a named individual or team, identified by wallet address and/or community handle, who is publicly accountable for ensuring the document is current and accessible.
Named owners must publish a public confirmation upon completion of each annual review. Any missed deadline must be publicly flagged within 30 days with an explanation and revised timeline. If a trigger clause update is not made within 30 days of a structural change, the responsible party must publicly acknowledge the delay and publish a revised timeline. No governance document becomes ownerless. Ownership transfers must be publicly documented.
Conclusion
The Decentraland DAO approved a mission that includes representative governance and efficient management of collective resources. Governance documents that are outdated, inaccessible, or simply wrong undermine both.
This is not a complex ask. It is the minimum that any serious organization maintains: a regular review cycle, a named responsible party, and a requirement that documentation reflects reality. The fact that it needs to be put through governance at all is itself evidence of why it is needed.
A properly maintained Governance Legislative Tracker, updated as required by this proposal, serves as the living directory of all current governance responsibilities, decisions, and accountable parties — making it the single reference point the community has never had.