by 0xbc02db030361121dd43bbb2fcbcb4f9f98c1dc7d (LennyKravitz)
Self explanatory. Proposals which had passed on multiple occasions, resurface once again. Similar to the ones which had failed on multiple occasions re-submit.
I feel like this is causing confusion & wasting everyones, time. Decentraland does/should not run on dictatorship. It’s either a pass or a fail. There is no in between.
We have to make it right.
Good question.
I voted YES, but only for 1 Year.
Thank you,
What happens after a year? 
Maybe I misunderstood, but I meant that after a year you can re-submit a failed or passed proposal.
Hey @JasonX! Can you list some examples of previously passed proposals that have resurfaced which are the focus of this proposal?
Hey Doug,
One of them is the Name mint price change to 25 Mana
I get the spirit of your proposal which is that once a decision has been made, to move on rather than getting stuck in a repetitive cycle of re-voting on the same issues over and over.
I think its a case by case basis, though. For example, for names, it might be justified to put the names cost up for a vote again when MANA price reaches some point (not saying I would vote yes on that, but I dont think its unreasonable if a flood of new users start complaining about it).
I dont think we can have a hard limit on one proposal per issue.
@JasonX I understand the concept. Would you be able to show another example? Are there noticeably any specific category of proposals that are resubmitted frequently?
Maybe we should use an excellent draft pending process for all not-enough proposals.
It means we don’t use “Can’t move to vote process” instead of “can’t resend proposals in a short time”.
But I don’t know how we can use such a function in DCL voting mechanism.
This is somewhat difficult to enforce, without getting into the realm of the arbitrary. I think the only way to truly enforce this would be through some form of committee process. I think its more procedures and norms that prevent laws from being resubmitted in traditional systems…
Agreed. I felt this way when we created a whole committee just to decide to revoke a grant when 99% of the work has already been done by the GSS. Doesn’t make sense. In this case I think we may eventually get to a point where we may need to filter proposals that actually get posted based on certain criteria but I don’t see it as a pain point rn.
In that case, I think the committee is warranted as an oversight and verification mechanism and prevent over centralization of power over the grants program, even if the role of that committee is limited.
There is a way to do something like you are asking. I was on the board of a small token DAO and first a proposal had to reach a certain number of votes before it counted and continued to be voted on. So for example Proposal is submitted, it must reach a certain number of votes (yes ad no) to show that the people are actually interested and find it to be a meaningful proposal. Once it meets that threshold then it has to reach another of YES votes (don;t have to vote again only once) or NO to pass or fail. If it doesn’t reach the first threshold it fails.
We also had in a place a 30 day policy on proposals that seek to change a newly passed proposal. Otherwise it becomes a game of ping pong.
I love this cause then we can have committee that enforces those committees. Basically I agree with you. LOL. Getting to be too much and we have to let the ones in place do what we put them there to do.
This is good. We are already doing something like this with the polls. If they get enough interest an official proposal can be written. If not we table the idea for later or drop it… no proposal needed. Good stuff.
Should The Previously Passed Proposal Topics Be Banned From Resurfacing As Another Proposal
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
Should The Previously Passed Proposal Topics Be Banned From Resurfacing As Another Proposal
This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)