Simply flagging this proposal for discussion in our upcoming town hall. I think there are some great discussions happening here.
I do also want to highlight that this is the second stage of the proposal and there is a third and final binding governance stage that lies ahead. So if you support the idea in general, but have some issues with specifics, a vote yes, does not mean this exact version is what will be passed.
That said, If there is wide enough dissent to the current form of the proposal, a rework of it at the Draft Stage here, could still be possible in our current framework (I believeā¦) We need to go back to the text of the original 3 stage proposal or potentially issue a amendment about what happens when a proposal fails on the Draft phase (I do think there should be an opportunity for one revision of the draft proposal, since there is already consensus that the issue needs resolution via passage of the pre-proposal poll.)
Great discussion happening here, Iāve been synching with multiple members of the community during the day to understand their perspectives but since Iām one of the candidates proposed I wanted to state my stance publicly:
First of all, I truly believe this is the right path toward decentralization. At the moment the Grant Support Squad is doing this work and the DAO Committee is executing based on their recommendations but there is no process nor transparency about it. This has already caused some issues in the community and by providing transparency and accountability (i.e. public votes, community calls, and financial incentives) we are already improving the current situation.
Having said that, I agree with @Seanny that voting members and processes on the same proposal might be risky and could be setting a bad precedent for the future. Even though this is how the DAO Committee and the Wearables Curation Committee started, I feel the community is having more mature conversations and this is something we should encourage.
I do like the idea of proposing an initial committee that could serve for a shorter time period (than the 12 months defined on the proposal), letās say 6 months, to start rolling the ball since this is a pressing issue. Also, I feel that 6 months is more than enough to figure out the specificities of adding/removing members. There is a good reference defined and voted on in this proposal (Adding/removing DAO Committee members) and I believe we should revise it to see if it fits with this committee or propose a new one via a working group. I also commit resources from the DAO Governance Squad to prioritize and execute any changes needed in order to support whatever the community decides regarding the mechanisms for adding/removing (i.e. A specific voting strategy, another snapshot space, shielded voting, etc.)
As conclusion:
I wonāt vote on the proposal in its current state
I suggest publishing two Draft proposals linked to the original poll, one defining the mechanisms and the second one proposing an initial executive team for the committee.
Wellā¦ took me a while to get hereā¦ had to go back and read the previous proposals and catch up. I would have voted to have the DAO committee decide instead of creating a new committee but that ship has sailedā¦ I agree with @Seanny that we should establish the framework first and then elect the committee. I also agree that the committee should be elected through an open process. Since we already have a framework based on the success of other committees, it shouldnāt be too painful of a process. In the meantimeā¦ Is there a reason why the DAO committee canāt continue to revoke grants based on the recommendation of the Grant Support Squad until the selection process for the new committee takes its course?
If the two processes were segregated I would be ok with supporting this proposalā¦ unless anyone has any better ideas.
PS: I enjoyed reading the proposals as well as all your comments, even if I donāt agree with the results, it is good to see how we openly work thru these pain points. Happy to take part.
voted no because this could be tricky either way. Even though it may be needed it would add a centralized group making decisions over grants outside of the foundation, and could have biases with both having a preset team or having people voted into these positions.
Thank you for pointing this out. While I agree that the issue of appointing/electing members and holding temporary committee is important, it seems to have really dominated the discussion and Iād like to know a bit more about the language in the procedure section of the proposal.
My main concern is the amount of room left for interpretation in areas of the procedure, and that it does not seem there is a step where the committee is required to hear from the grantee. It says:
While I would assume the intention is to hear from both parties, it leaves the window open to have a complaint submitted, evaluated, and resolved without any information or involvment other than the initial āresponseā from the grantee.
Is there another time/place/manner where this will be available to discuss before the final version is proposed?
First youāre right about the dominance of the discussion. I think itās not wrong but there are also a lot of other things to talk about here.
Re: requirement to talk to the grantee, based on my knowledge of the grant process, the grantee should be relatively accessible within discord and/or via email as in a ānormalā working situation they are having at least monthly meetings with the grant support squad.
I would say that in the case a grant is flagged to be revoked, the grantee must, at least, give a statement in their defense to the revocation committee and can have other meetings as necessary. Generally I think theyād be eager to talk to this committee so I imagine communication between the two wonāt be a problem.
There is also the unlikely case where the grantee simply doesnāt communicate, but I believe this is one of the use cases of revocation - when a grantee disappears.
Maybe one thing to work out is what happens if itās a single grantee who for whatever reason is out of touch (they got sick, they got lost in mountains, abducted by aliens, etc) - in that case the grant is unable to be fulfilled and it makes sense to me for it to be revoked, but should it simply be paused? what if the grantee is able to complete the work later?
I definitely agree that this should be the understanding, but I find that the current language used around meeting with the grant support squad and some other expectations for grantees also leaves room for interpretation on what is reccommended and what is required with consequence for failure to do so, even if the expectation may seem clear. This is why I feel itās so important to use explicit language in this proposal.
I think itās a great idea to specify in the procedure that the grantee must give a statement in their defense, then maybe outline a series of next actions based on accepting, not accepting, or not receiving the statement within the designated period alotted. I also like what you suggest about a possible emergency situation- these are the types of things I feel should be anticipated and clearly outlined for each step of the procedure before the final proposal is voted on. This way, the community members can be on the same page about the steps that will be taken to protect the DAO funds, the opportunities given to the grantee to defend themselves, and the measures in place to ensure transparency in each possible scenario that could reasonably be anticipated.
Yep, makes sense, and I agree with you. There should be a protocol which is followed in what I should think will be the relatively rare cases where the revocation committee is called to act.
Definitely! one thing that i talked about with @Zino and @yararasita is that while we will not be able to anticipate all the possible scenarios (our experience so far has shown us this, itās why weāre here in the first place as this largely is stemming from the DG 1 million USD grant), one of the goals of this initial committee is to (1) identify as many of these scenarios as possible and (2) organize a structure and format of what āgoodā and ābadā grant scenarios looks like and how we respond to them as a community.
One concrete example of this is āWhat are red flags that would trigger an investigation / possibility of revocation?ā Certainly one of those is lack of communication, but there are unknown unknowns here that only experience can teach, and being organized enough that we are prepared (as a community) to learn those lessons should be a priority.
@dax Right on, thanks for taking the time to chat about this. At what point will these action plans be available to the community? Is clarifying these elements part of the next step between this draft and the final proposal?
If thereās any opportunity to participate or be of any help, especially with the technical writing aspects, please donāt hesitate to reach out
Good callā¦ I agree with adding a requirement for the committee to hear the grantee before deciding, giving the grantee a limited amount of time to respond.
Hi everyone! Thank you so much for commenting this actively in the proposal. This really helps us understand the importance of working on processes before people involved in them.
Your insights and comments will be taken into account, and weāll be uploading a new proposal with these changes in a few days.
