by 0x247e0896706bb09245549e476257a0a1129db418 (DCLCars)
What is this poll about?
The DAO Council has important responsibilities. It oversees the Executive Arm, approves plans and budgets, and helps guide the DAO.
The current rules explain how Council members are elected and removed, but they do not say how long a member can stay in the role. This means Council members do not need to face a new election after a fixed period.
This poll asks the community if we should change that.
Suggested term limits
My suggested starting point is:
One term lasts 2 years.
A member can serve a maximum of 2 terms in a row.
After 2 terms, the member must take a 2-year break before running again.
How current members move into the new system should be discussed in the next step.
Council members can still resign or be removed early through the existing DAO process.
Why set term limits ?
Term limits would give the community a regular chance to review Council members and choose who should represent the DAO.
They could also:
stop the same people from staying in power for too long;
create more chances for new candidates and new ideas;
make Council members ask the community for support again; and
keep useful experience, because a member could still serve for up to 4 years in a row.
This poll is not binding. Its purpose is to understand what the community wants. If the community supports term limits, a later Draft Proposal can work out the details, including the rules for current members. The rules would change only if a final binding Governance Proposal also passes.
I don’t think the Council should have term limits.
Each member currently hold years of knowledge about Decentraland, the community, governance, treasury management, and operations. They also review the yearly budget, communicate with Regenesis Labs monthly, and hold multisig access. From the forum to Town Halls, it’s clear they’ve each contributed and made themselves available for community discussion and feedback.
If the community has concerns about a Council member’s performance, make a forum post and hold them accountable. That’s a better system than forcing someone out because a term expired.
I also think it’s the responsibility of each Council member to step down when they feel they are no longer contributing, know someone more qualified, or can no longer dedicate the time.
I think rotating Council members just for the sake of turnover or to give others participation trophies creates more risk than reward.
Let’s be realistic, few people will publicly challenge a Council member, especially when personal relationships and possible backlash are involved. Accountability shouldnt depend on someone being willing to take that risk.
Yeah but the DAO committee and the Council were set up completely different. Not every Council member has access to funds, each hold different responsibilities. Its much “easier” to quit the Council than how the DAO committee is set up. The 18 month mandate for Regenesis labs is coming up, and once that is done, the community has a perfect opportunity to assess the Council/Regenesis labs and raise concerns.
I think having a silent term expectation is needed. Theres middleground… not too short (one year) but not like a 5-10 term either. (unless the council member proves to be a critical part of the DAO). If things become obviously stagnant, I am sure it will be seen and noticed.
and when I say silent, I mean “in the back of our mind, if we see theres no movement after X years, lets talk”. Hence, why I am hesitant to define the exact term.
The DAO Committee and Council are structured differently, but the Council still has significant influence over the DAO’s future through its oversight of the Executive Arm and its approval of the annual strategy, budget, and Treasury Management Strategy.
The end of Regenesis Labs’ mandate may be a good opportunity for review, but it doesn’t create a regular review of each Council member. I think this proposal is the middle ground: two-year terms, up to two consecutive terms, so members can serve for four years while the community gets a regular chance to decide whether to renew their mandate.
I value your opinion and appreciate the time you took to share it. I understand that we may have different views.
I think term limits makes total sense. Not sure what the time limit should be, but I don’t think the entire council’s terms should expire at the same time. Stagger elections/terms for each member by 6 months or so, so veteren members can onboard the new member and pass on procedures/knowledge.
Also, if this does pass, I think members should be able to run again for the same position indefinitely. There are so few users in decentraland, and only a portion of those users are involved in the DAO. Of those involved, only a fraction of those ppl are qualified, committed, and motivated enough for the position. If someone did a good job, allow them to continue their work.
Thanks for your comments. I agree that staggered terms are worth considering so the Council does not lose all its experience at once.
I understand the argument for unlimited renewals, but I still think two consecutive terms followed by a required break is a reasonable safeguard against the same people holding power indefinitely. They could run again after the break.
Since this is a poll, it can be a starting point. If the community prefers unlimited renewals, that can be considered in the next stage.
