BFIP-10 BattleFly DAO Revised BFIP Procedures and Clarifications

Summary

BFIP-10 is a proposal to clarify existing DAO Council roles and responsibilities and create a more comprehensive procedure for receiving and incorporating community feedback into future DAO proposals.

Current System

Any DAO member may initiate a discussion within the BattleFly discord Governance channel. After some amount of discussion a proposal is written and submitted to the DAO Council whose role is as follows:

Role of the Council

This Council will facilitate which proposals go to Snapshot vote, ensuring…

1. Proposals are properly vetted and fine-tuned before being presented to the DAO for vote
2. Low quality, unviable, and/or malicious proposals are not put to vote
3. The DAO is able to move fast and focus on proposals that matter

Once the Council moves a proposal to Snapshot vote, DAO members have 3 days to vote on the proposal as published on Snapshot.

Proposed Changes

Any DAO member may initiate a discussion within the Battlefly discord Governance channel.

After some discussion, any DAO member may write and submit a proposal for review by the DAO Council via a private channel (similar to a support ticket) in discord.

Role of the Council:

The Council will approve or disapprove proposals based on the following criteria:

1. Ensuring that any proposal submitted to the DAO is not low quality, unviable, and/or malicious.

2. The DAO is able to move fast and focus on proposals that matter.

If the proposal is approved by the DAO Council, then a four day reading period will commence throughout which the proposal will be published for DAO members to review and comment on.

After the reading period ends, the proposal author may, at their discretion, modify or edit the proposal based upon the comments received. This optional revision period, initiated by the author, shall last no more than 2 days. If the proposal author needs more time for revision, a one time extension may be requested for no more than 2 additional days. Revisions must NOT fundamentally change the intent of the proposal.

Upon completion of the revision period (if applicable) the proposal will be returned to the DAO Council for a 48 hour revision review. The DAO council can vote on a Revision Review as follows:

• Accepted - Which would move the revised proposal to a snapshot vote
• Accepted as Fundamentally Different - Which would restart the four day reading period for the revised proposal.
• Rejected

After the reading period has ended without any further revisions, the proposal will move to a snapshot vote. Snapshot voting will remain open for 72 hours.

Rationale

Reasons to Accept:

Additional Procedures

• Allows DAO members more time to review BFIP proposals and open additional forums for discussion.
• Allows meaningful feedback to be considered and potentially incorporated by the author.
• These additional procedures create a more decentralized framework for DAO proposals, helps to facilitate participation by all DAO members both in the creation of BFIP proposals and allows all DAO members the necessary time and space to make an informed decision.

Role Clarifications

• Further defines the scope of the DAO Council so that the Council members can better execute their roles and responsibilities.
• Aligns the written roles with the original intention of a DAO Council with a narrow purview. The DAO Council does not govern rather facilitates the direct governance by each and every DAO member.

Reasons to Decline:

Additional Procedures

• This more robust system will extend the time required for a proposal to be moved to a vote. In Web3, every second counts.
• This proposed procedure does not allow for a second round of review by the DAO Council.

Role Clarifications

• DAO members will bear the responsibility of individual governance. The Council members can not be their “voice”.

Indicative Poll

Accept: Procedures will be updated as outlined above and Role Clarifications will be published and accepted.

Reject: Procedures would remain the same and Role Clarifications would remain unpublished.