by 0x89a1d730aa1e78a0ede8dea988acecff0a6e99a9 (Szjanko)
Objective:
Refine the governance process in Decentraland by accelerating the voting period, as well as including a pre-submission feedback phase to enhance the quality of proposals.
Benefits:
Enhances the efficiency of the governance process by speeding up the voting period while enabling thorough community engagement with a public forum for proposal improvements.
Encourages proactive community involvement in the early stages of proposal development.
Could potentially help to prevent or reduce the need for resubmissions.
Detaching discussions from formal voting could potentially reduce the pressure on both voters and grant requestors during the process.
Proposal Details & Options:
Pre-Submission Phase (5-7 days): Introduce a feedback phase before voting for community members to refine proposals. During this phase no voting will occur, the community will be able to provide feedback on ways to improve the proposal, areas to clarify in it, and validating if there is community interest in the proposal.
Reduced Voting Period (7-10 days): Shorten the voting period to enhance decision-making efficiency.
Variable Voting Period: Implement a tier-based voting duration that aligns with the scale and impact of the proposal.
Tier 1-4: Up to $60,000 USD in MANA - 7 days of voting.
Tier 5: Up to $120,000 USD in MANA - 10 days of voting.
Tier 6: Up to $240,000 USD in MANA - 14 days of voting.
Implementation:
Clearly define and integrate the reduced voting periods or variable timeline into the Decentraland governance dApp.
Adapt existing tools already deployed in the governance dApp, such as the window periods between the submission of a tender proposal and the voting start for the pre-submission feedback period.
Yes, implement a 5-day discussion and 10-day voting period.
Yes, implement a 5-day discussion and 7-day voting period.
Yes, variable timeline based on the proposalâs value tier.
I donât see why this is necessary, itâs already possible to ask for feedback on a proposal right now by posting it on the forum or asking friends for feedback.
That will make the grant process even more complicated, both for grantees and for voters that will have two proposals to care about instead of one, and we know that voters fatigue is already very well present in the DAO.
The process wonât be accelerated, it will actually be slowed down as we will go from 14 days to between 5+7 (12 days) and 7+14 (21 days).
The voting period would be sped up in all cases suggested here, except for the variable $120k-$240k option, that would have the same 14 day voting period that we have now since its asking for a lot of money. My favorite option personally is the 5 day discussion - 7 day voting for all, which would reduce the overall time by 2 days and the voting time by 50%. Open to other suggestions/formats also though.
Yes, its already possible to get feedback on proposals by posting it on the forum or asking friends, but itâs pretty obvious that there are many proposals being posted for voting that have not gone through a ârefiningâ process. Making a public pre-submission feedback phase part of the process, should result in higher quality proposals during the voting stage.
Gathering potential issues or areas for improvement early on, can save time and resources for both grantees and voters in the long run. This separation aims to alleviate some of the pressure on both voters and grant requestors.
The reasoning is that if you create an instance to gather feedback allowing the requestor to adjust their proposal before the voting, you will definitely obtain a more focused and efficient decision-making during a reduced voting period.
Plus, having this published in the Governance app creates awareness and drives more engagement than a post in the forum (thatâs a fact).
This proposal literally addresses voter fatigue by detaching discussions from formal voting. IMO, what doesnât make sense is to get feedback from the community during a 14-day voting process, when feedback in a binding request has no practical effects, because it cannot be adjusted. So, if feedback during the voting period has no practical effects, potential rejections will only lead to resubmissions, meaning another 14-day voting process. Voter fatigue x2.
PS: Iâd also go to for the â5 day discussion - 7 day voting for allâ option.
Iâm confused.
Donât we already have a 3 step process â Poll, Draft, Governance Proposal?
How would this new Pollâs idea fit in that existing Framework?
Or maybe it is that proposals are not today required to go through the 3 steps?
Who can explain what the requirements are today. Are they not sufficient?
Breaking down the grant request process in two stages, but aiming to reduce the time for the votings. The idea is to detach the voting from the discussions giving the opportunity to the requestor to adjust the proposal and reducing the time for the voting process.
1st Step - Pre-Submission: You present the idea and get community feedback (no voting here).
2nd Step - Formal Request: You adjust your proposal based on community feedback and promote it to a formal grant request for a voting.
Hi folks, thanks for sharing this.
I donât agree having a formal step for pre-submission feedback is needed as a hard governance mechanism. The way I see it and the way I believe it should work is that proposals are not the first step in the life of an idea but rather the opposite, publishing a proposal should come after discussions with the community and even maybe presenting the proposal in a community town hall.
Why the length of the voting period is an issue right now?
If voter fatigue is an issue (Not sure how to measure that) I would suggest something like a fixed weekly voting period like other DAOs do. i.e. Proposals could be all open for voting on the same day regardless of the publication date.