Given some of the recent grievances being aired by the community, I think we can knock out several rofls with one stone here.
Some people feel that PC makes decisions without consulting the DAO first – it is the DAO’s responsibility to course correct but timing is tough when things are short notice
Some people have noted that some sig props don’t become core proposals right away… there is a dead period
Sometimes proposals are written in a biased manner that lead on voters
With a taskforce for snapshot management, we can take this load off of PC themselves. They are furiously busy building our wonderful gotchiverse so offloading this responsibility to trusted community members (with PC still giving a final signoff before a core prop is posted) could help unclog the DAO a bit so to speak. Responsibilities would include:
Removing any malformed sigprops in a timely manner
Monitoring active sigprops for ones that pass
When a SigProp passes with quorem, a CoreProp should be created within 48 hours with a reasonable voting period.
CoreProps should be drafted by members of this team, and SHOULD NOT just be carbon copies of the SigProp. When a CoreProp is ready to go live, someone from PixelCraft can give it a review and approve or make edits before posting.
Members of this team should:
Have a vast knowledge of many facets of DeFi and crypto in general. You should be able to fully understand every SigProp that shows up (this unfortunately excludes me from this taskforce as some props go over my head).
Be prepared to review discussions surrounding a SigProp and create an UNBIASED CoreProp when the time comes that clearly outlines arguments for each side.
With this team, I think we as a DAO can have a much more streamlined process of getting proposals through the pipeline, while taking some burden off of the PC team so they can focus on making this sick game.
Though I agree with the sentiment, I think some ideas outlined in this proposal are not good solutions. The mere concept of a DAO is still nascent, and I think it’s best to work this issue out as a community rather than making a committee that essentially decides what is and isn’t a worthy proposition. I especially think that coreprops should NOT be exclusively drafted by the committee. Anyone with a proposition with popular support deserves to have it heard in the manner they wish, even if it’s biased. The result of trying to remove bias is usually the hiding of that bias, not the removal.
I do recognize though that there is a need for some sort of moderation. I think a good start is creating clear guidelines and limits to moderation behavior rather than simply launching a moderation force with a vague opposition to bias. In particular, there needs to be strong safeguards against moderators acting in their own self interest or ego, a problem that plagues countless forums that have had similar ideas on moderation. Though the Aavegotchi community is amazing, I don’t believe that we are immune to this.
In general. I’m not completely against or for this proposal. I mostly just want to voice my concerns on the problems that this path can take and advise caution in this matter. The implications of creating a moderation team haphazardly can be very hard to take back.
I agree with Mori, while I like the idea of a group helping make the proposal system more efficient it should be up to people to utilize them if they so choose. One group of unelected randoms should not have the power to decide what proposals a DAO even considers.
I disagree that every single proposal needs to look fresh and unlike any other, to the complete opposite. I like the idea of several formats that people can follow that help them discuss their idea and helps them to know what kind of things should be included before people can even ask for it.
You guys bring up some good points. The main thing that I’d be aiming for here is a quick transition between SigProp and CoreProp. If the DAO is eager enough, we should be able to put a course correcting proposal from inception to a passing core proposal vote in less than 3 weeks. Right now, proposals’ lifespans tend to be well over a month, largely due to downtime between proposal stages.
In the past, the PC team has taken discretion in how they write up core proposals (i.e. they are not necessarily all carbon copies of SigProps). This taskforce/team would work directly with PC to draft up CoreProps, not unilaterally create them. Someone like CoderDan or Jesse would still need to provide a final stamp of approval.
To Antelino’s point, I am all for templating or formats to help organize consistent proposals. These details, in my opinion, are less important than the efficiency that this team would provide.
To Mori’s point, this would definitely not be a group that acts on behalf of the DAO. Anyone can still create a DAO forum post and then write up the SigProp themselves. This team would simply help with the transition from Sig → CoreProp.
Happy to abandon for now if we think this is unnecessary
I very much like your revised(ish) statement and would fully back and vote for a proposal that said something similar, I think you make excellent points regarding the needed efficiency and need to turn SigProps into CorProps in a timely manner.
