[DAO: Qme3fLo] Establish a Formal Process for Adding/Removing DAO Committee Members

Governance
1

by 0x76fb13f00cdbdd5eac8e2664cf14be791af87cb0 (Matimio)

Linked Draft Proposal

Establish a Formal Process for Adding/Removing DAO Committee Members

Summary

The DAO needs a clear process for removing and adding DAO Committee members. This proposal is a Draft Proposal outlining such a process for community consideration.

Abstract

The DAO needs to be able to add and remove committee members in a variety of situations:

  • When a committee member resigns
  • When the community wants to replace a committee member
  • When a committee member must be removed quickly in an emergency

There are also several needs that need to be balanced when making changes to the DAO Committee:

  • Decisions must be as decentralized as possible
    -Only qualified and trustworthy candidates should be appointed to the committee
  • Committee members must be able to collaborate and work well together
    -The committee must be able to act immediately in an emergency

Bearing in mind the situations and needs listed above, please review this draft proposal process for removing, sourcing, and appointing DAO Committee members.

Motivation

Currently, the process for adding or removing a DAO Committee Member can only be triggered and/or canceled (within a 24 hour delay mechanism) by a Security Advisor Board (SAB) member. This proposal introduces a pathway to expand the stakeholders and processes involved in removing and appointing DAO Committee Members to include the SAB, DAO Committee Members or members of the Decentraland Community.

Adding a new committee member is only initiated following the removal or resignation of an existing member which should be triggerable by any of the above stakeholders, including the committee member wishing to resign.

The following section introduces the proposed processes and procedures that each stakeholder category can initiate in order to remove and subsequently add a member to the DAO Committee.

Specification

Removing a committee member

Each stakeholder category will have a different process for initiating the removal of a DAO Committee Member.

How a committee member removal can be initiated:

  1. By the DAO Committee:
  • Any committee member can create the delayed transaction in Aragon (including the resigning member)
  • After 24 hours, the committee member is removed
  • Any committee members can cancel the removal within the 24 hour delay window.
  • DAO Committee must create a proposal to confirm the decision with the community
  1. By the Security Advisory Board:
  • The SAB can create a delayed committee member removal transaction in Aragon
    After 24 hours, the member is removed
  • 3 of 5 SAB members can cancel the removal within the 24 hour delay window
  • In an emergency situation, the SAB can create a removal transaction in Aragon that is immediately implemented, temporarily removing committee powers from a DAO committee member
  • Transaction must be confirmed by 3 of the 5 SAB members within 24 hours or the Committee Member’s powers are restored. If confirmed, the committee member is removed and their token burned. If unconfirmed they must be reinstated.
  • If removing a member in an emergency, the SAB must create a proposal to retroactively confirm the decision with the community
  1. By the community by creating a proposal:
  • The DAO should add a REMOVE COMMITTEE MEMBER proposal category with the following required parameters:
    • The name of the committee member to remove
    • Reasoning for the removal of the committee member. This should include evidence supporting their removal in the event of misconduct.
  • To submit a proposal to remove a committee member a community member must have 5,000 VP or delegated VP.
  • The acceptance criteria for committee member removal proposals should be set to 6 million VP and 2/3rds participating majority of voting power.
  • If a REMOVE COMMITTEE MEMBER proposal passes, the committee member is expected to resign.
  • If a REMOVE COMMITTEE MEMBER proposal passes and the committee member does not wish to resign, the DAO Committee should initiate a delayed removal transaction.
    In the event that the remaining DAO Committee members do not ratify the removal decision, they must submit a proposal to the community arguing the case for retaining the committee member.
  1. If this proposal is rejected, then the SAB is responsible for removing the committee member.
  2. If this proposal passes with an acceptance criteria of at least 6 million VP and a 2/3rds participating majority of voting power, then the committee member is not removed.

After the removal has been approved by the DAO, several steps have to be taken:

  • In the event of an immediate resignation or emergency removal of a committee member, a member of the SAB should stand in as a temporary member until a replacement is appointed
  • The Committee member’s COMMITTEE token in Aragon must be burned to prevent them from initiating transactions on the DAO’s behalf.
  • The Committee member’s address must be removed from the DAO’s multisig proxy.
  • The process for finding a replacement member should be initiated by the DAO Committee as a post on the Forum calling for applications

Impacts

This proposal will enable multiple pathways for DAO Committee Members to be removed, resign, and be elected to the committee. It also creates legitimate pathways for rapid response by the Security Advisory Board (SAB) and other DAO Committee members in an emergency situation.Up to this time, there has been no formal pathway for the removal or appointment of new committee members.

Implementation Pathways

At this time, there is one DAO Committee spot open. Following approval of this proposal, the DAO committee will release an open call for DAO Committee Member Applicants, and follow the process outlined in the conclusion section below. Additionally, the DAO Committee will coordinate with the SAB to modify necessary Parameters via the DAO’s Aragon infrastructure.

Conclusion

Adding a committee member

The process for adding a committee member includes three stages: the open application period, the committee interviews, and a final vote by ranked choice. If the DAO decides not to implement support for ranked choice voting, then separate proposals could be created for each individual candidate selected by the DAO Committee after the interview stage.

Open application period (2 weeks)

Applications submitted as posts on the forum, applicants should answer:

  1. What is your full name?
  2. What is your primary wallet address?
  3. Why are you applying?
  4. What is your history with both Decentraland and Decentraland’s DAO?
  5. What skills, qualifications, and experience will you bring to the committee?
  6. Can you commit at least 10 hours per week to the DAO?
  7. Provide links to any relevant social media profiles or other information that will help the community when evaluating candidates.
  8. Provide a list of two references, at least one of which is in the Decentraland community that can attest to your character and/or commitment to Decentraland.

Committee Interviews (1 week)

Given how closely the DAO Committee must work together in order to accomplish its goals, it is important that they all work well together as a team. Furthermore, the existing DAO Committee members (having already earned the DAO’s trust) should act as additional filters in the selection process.

The existing DAO Committee should have 1 week to interview candidates as a panel.

Final community vote (2 weeks)

After the interview phase, the DAO Committee is responsible for creating a final proposal in the DAO listing their picks for the top 5 candidates. The DAO should implement a ranked choice voting system for committee member additions.

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

2

I really like this proposal. I have only a few comments/changes that I would like to suggest:

  1. Committee member removal
    a) It looks like a “stubborn” Committee member could prevent their own removal. I would require the Committee multisig to add/remove a member of the Committee, with no power for other Committee members to do something in those 24 hours.
    b) I don’t think the 24-hour security delay makes sense without the SAB veto power.
    c) I would keep the 24-hour security delay for the SAB to veto a change. In case they do; there might be clear evidence that this SAB member is acting against the committee’s decision, and if this needs fixing, an on-chain Community vote can remove them from the SAB.

  2. Committee member removal by the SAB
    a) I got a little confused by this. I would keep this simple: the same rules by which the SAB can do any other action (which are very strict – they require full consensus) also apply for adding or removing a committee member. I agree that communicating the reasons and a retroactive confirmation should be expected from the SAB.
    b) See Annex I for details on Aragon votes and the “expedited execution” conditions.

  3. Community removal
    Sounds good. My only note is that I would require the Committee multisig to propose adding/removing a member of the Committee to avoid “stubborn” members that might complicate the process.

How Aragon Votes work

The SAB Vote is configured for 100% of support (full consensus), 60% minimum approval, and a 24-hour voting period.

  • This means that: 5-of-5 can do immediate changes, and 3-of-5 can do 24-hour delayed changes, if and only if any of the other 2 members don’t vote negatively.
  • Both the “Support % Threshold” and the “Minimum Approval %” conditions are required for the vote to be successful. Support is set to 100%, and Minimum Approval is set to 60%. The SAB token supply is 5.
    • Support is the relative percentage of tokens that are required to vote “Yes” for a proposal to be approved. For example, if “Support” is set to 50%, then more than 50% of the tokens used to vote on a proposal must vote “Yes” for it to pass.
    • Minimum Approval is the percentage of the total token supply that is required to vote “Yes” on a proposal before it can be approved. For example, if the “Minimum Approval” is set to 20%, then more than 20% of the token supply must vote “Yes” on a proposal for it to pass.
  • The “immediate” execution is a little bit of a hack on Aragon that only becomes available if there is no possible reversal of the vote.
    • If 3 of the 5 members voted YES, you already meet the Support and Minimum Approval conditions, but any of the other two members might show up and vote against the proposal! This would turn the “Support %” to only 75% (calculated as 3 YES out of 4 valid votes) but 100% is needed. Regardless of whether the “Minimum Approval %” condition is met, the vote won’t pass.
    • Instead, if 5 of the 5 members vote YES, the Aragon Voting app allows for “speedy” enactment of the vote (all voters already showed up). It assumes that voters won’t change their mind.
3

Establish a Formal Process for Adding/Removing DAO Committee Members

This proposal is now in status: PASSED.

Voting Results:

  • Yes 100% 6,654,561 VP (30 votes)
  • No 0% 0 VP (0 votes)
4

Establish a Formal Process for Adding/Removing DAO Committee Members

This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbfa6d24e6a061e9aea3447163fdfe045177dd40e)