Introducing Governance Committees

Governance Design 📐 Metagovernance
18

After a review of the proposal in discussion with our community contributors, we believe that the following points should be preserved:

  • Committees are there to reduce the workload and to try to ensure that the proposals arrive as suitable as possible for discussion and decision by the delegates and the community.

  • This means that committees should not feel like an intrusive role in which delegates may feel that their responsibilities are being diminished or lose their sense of self.

  • Committees should not be made up of members who have a greater voting power so as not to discourage participation (let’s say stop at >30%).

So the question is how to insert the role of the committees so that it is as useful as possible and does not disfigure the role of the delegates. For this we have the following procedural vision:

First of all, until now and as proposed in the Operating Manual v0.2:

  1. Project made a proposal, then
  2. A team post in #gov-temp-check (Discord) to receive feedback from the entire community.
  3. Then they post in Governance Fund: Phase 1 in DRAFT mode, receiving more feedback.
  4. Change DRAFT to REVIEW to receive more feedback in a formal way.
  5. Two delegates with >0.5% voting power approve the proposal for snapshot voting.

In this case, step 2 and 3 looks redundant and certainly the tempcheck # channel today does not fulfill its mission in most cases (for whatever reasons). Precisely we believe that committees can replace or lead this section in which delegates commit to making initial major reviews so that delegates can receive a clean proposal ready for final discussion. With the committee introduction, we propose:

  1. Project made a proposal, then
  2. A team post in #gov-commite-check (Discord by example) or another instance in the forum (focused in this initial discussion) to receive feedback from a committee in DRAFT mode.
  3. Committee and team work together to make changes and correct execution of the proposal in general. Committee here provides any sort of seal of approval to move to the following instance.
  4. Team post in Governance Fund: Phase 1 its proposal in REVIEW mode and committee post inmediately a final balance with recommendations, pros and cons about the proposal.
  5. Delegates and community review properly since here. Two delegates with >0.5% voting power approve the proposal for snapshot voting, as well committee members could also give the pass…

In this model review cycle can be reduced from 3 to 2 weeks as committee is working from day one. Please everyone feel free to discuss about if this could be an optimal approach to give range of action to a committee.

About number of committees, we agree that the DeFi category should be divided, for example, into 2 (seems better reach a consensus about splitting subcatterogies) and a kind of cross-audit in case the committees wish to do so. In this case we expect at leats 4 committee and then 20 delegates working (can a delegate be part of 2 topics?)

This is a good approach.

Another question to be clarified, in this case for @ben-chain is about the origin of the funds, provided by the foundation or what part of the allocation, if it would be OP or another asset, and if it were the first case (OP tokens) clarify once again the issue of self-delegation, if it will be well seen or not.

7 Likes