LIP-5: Proposal for urgent approval framework

Platone

TITLE: Proposal for urgent approval framework

AUTHOR(S): @exalted @Platone

PURPOSE AND VISION:
The initial design for the governance framework was to maximize the opportunity for comment on all proposals. It is clear that whilst we are still in our growth phase we need an optional and standardized “Expedited” governance process to make decisions quickly. This proposal suggests an alternative governance route. When posting a proposal the community would have to specify if they are applying for an Expedited governance process and request approval from the community via a poll on the forum.

The vision is to have this in place as an early-stage feature and phase this out as we grow and delegate more powers to sub-dao’s.

IMPACT:
A quicker decision-making framework can enable the DAO to be more agile until more powers are delegated to the sub-dao’s.

OVERVIEW:
The current framework is leading to longer lead times for decision making and particularly whilst we are in our growth phase it’s important to keep everyone engaged in conversation and make decisions quicker.

This proposal requests the introduction of an alternate pathway titled “Expedited Governance” that would have to be applied for on any relevant proposals via a poll on the forum.

It is important to note that consensus should still be reached, therefore mod powers will still be in place to ensure that all opinions have been answered appropriately. With that in regard, these timelines can be extended until consensus is reached.

SPECIFICATION:
Expedited Governance Framework: 1 day Draft where the poll takes place. If approved the following day (24h after posting) the proposal will move to be a Formal Proposal for 12h available for veto, following this period a vote will be conducted on Snapshot over 24 hours.

This would mean that Expedited governance works as follows:

Day 1: Draft Proposal 24h - Poll to “Grant”/”Reject” Expedited governance.
IF the Poll result is “Grant” the author can introduce a Formal Proposal.
The author tags a mod who assigns an E-LIP number (Expedited Lobis Improvement Proposal).
Day 2: Formal Proposal for 12h - available for veto comments.
IF there are no valid veto comments then a Snapshot vote will be conducted over 24 hours to “Accept”/”Reject” the details of the E-LIP.

Important:
If there are changes to be made to the draft proposal then it’s likely that it will be rejected for expedited governance.
If it passes the author will have an opportunity to rectify/implement changes to the proposal, it can’t move forward as a formal proposal for voting until these concerns are addressed and the consensus is reached.

Signal Voting
Signal vote will require a quorum of 10% of staked LOBI (sLOBI) in order to be considered valid.

ROADMAP AND TIMELINE:
Formal Proposal live for 24h - available for veto comments. Then vote on Snapshot following this period.

24 h veto
2 days voting on snapshot

BUDGET: Not required

plutusIIIIII

Platone IF there are no valid veto comments

Can you give an example of what this means, exactly? Who holds veto power? Who or what determines whether or not a veto comment is “valid”?

Gustl

Deep breath : Yes.

Platone

plutusIIIIII Veto power is in the hand of the community. In case there are objections to the proposal from a member, supported by other members with joint consensus, we will take a step back and reformulate the proposal accordingly to the feedback provided by the community.

amc88

This is absolutely critical. We don’t want protracted processes related to voting holding up the pace of progress. When we first started, the weeklong process to adjudicate struck me as prohibitive. We’ve since made improvements…but this proposal, solves a lot of those issues…allows us to be reactive if necessary in relative short order. This may be an unpopular view but I’m also ok with our OG Gigabrains serving as benevolent dictators and taking important issues straight to vote in situations that called for it (example would be APY). Slight tangent, but in these early stages, I encourage benevolent dictatorship to help set the tone/provide a north star 🙂

btt

So basically, an author can change his/her proposal at at given point prior to the formation of a formal proposal, which should be fine since voters still have the veto opportunity to make sure that an absolute consensus has to be reached during that stage. However, if a proposal was vetoed, should the grant of Expedited governance also be revoked? In my opinion it highly depends on how much change the author has made after the draft proposal period and prior to the formal proposal period. Maybe it’s worth also letting voters vote for whether or not to revoke the grant of the Expedited governance during the veto period.

Coinye

Need more details on the veto process. Define “valid” and what is the process for resolving a “valid” veto comment? Based on what is written under “Important”, I am assuming the expectation is that any proposal that receives a “valid” veto is essentially scrapped, but I would think having 1 time limited period dedicated to amending the proposal that is acceptable to the OP is reasonable.

Platone

Coinye Hey! Thanks for the valuable comment! A valid means that the member’s objection is backed by the consensus of other members as well. In that case, the Author of the proposal needs to take a step back and refine the proposal on the basis of the agreed decision during the community discussion.

IceCubeIIIIII

Thanks @Platone
A few comments on this one, and would love to see it amended before it goes to a vote (sorry for the late reply and this being formal, but it’s also due to the accelerated path that was taken).
1/ I think we need to reduce also the normal framework to: 3 days debate on draft, 1 day formal, 2 days voting.
2/ 10% quorum sounds high to me, 5% should be ok in my humble opinion
3/ I think we should state that this proposal is to be used for urgent matters

StoicShark

Even though I absolutely agree with the notion of moving fast during our early stages, I want to make sure that we do not become complacent and begin to rush important proposals that require additional time for discussion.

That said, I support this proposal and believe it’s important that we avoid bottlenecks at this stage of our lifecycle.

Another idea that I would like to float is that we can equally have an agreement to expedite proposals to the ‘rushed’ framework if they have been live for 48hrs and have received no comments.

IceCubeIIIIII

@StoicShark
totally agree with your points. Also I think it makes more sense to say we can move forward to next phase if no comment for 24h rather than 48h