[SEP 40] Governance Cycle Amendments Season 3, Sprint 3

Please refer to the full proposal text on the SafeDAO forum. Some parts may have been removed to fit within the character limit on Snapshot.

Title:

[SEP 40] Governance Cycle Amendments Season 3, Sprint 3

Authors:

Amy (Safe, @amy.sg), Andre Geest (Safe, @Andre)

Created:

2024-08-12

Abstract

Following our OBRA retro and reassessing governance needs, this proposal suggests the following amendments to the governance cycle structure:

1. Remove “Phase 0” and start at Phase 1 [Draft] at the beginning of the Governance Cycle/Sprint. The proposal cycle officially starts with Phase 1. This would give two weeks for Phase 1 proposal review and discussion. Anyone can start a pre-Phase 1 proposal as a regular forum post under the label “Discussion”.
2. Introduce a proposal change freeze period: Proposal changes are frozen by the Thursday of Week 2. This ensures open questions/comments are completed in a timely manner and avoids any drastic changes for delegates and guardians signaling.
3. Add a reflection period by shorten Voting Period to Thursday / 9 days (from Monday / 12 days), with the following Friday-Sunday as reflection. The new cycle would start Monday as usual. This gives time to reflect and allow results to settle before starting the next cycle.

A visual of the changes are under “Changes Visualized”.

Proposal types

[ ] SEP: Constitutional Proposals [X] SEP: Governance Proposals [ ] Other SEPs

Proposal details

Purpose and Background

Background

Thank you to everyone who provided feedback in the initial discussion. An initial discussion was started in this thread.

Through voter interviews and our OBRA retro, in the past 2 Seasons, the governance team observed two actions: First, Guardians, delegates, and the governance team felt there was not enough time to properly review proposals in Phase 1. Secondly, the purpose of Phase 0 was unclear to proposal authors. Formally moving through Phase 0 to Phase 1 caused poor proposal experience. While we have other initiatives in the pipeline to ease these pain points, improving review experience for proposals is the first step.

At this phase, we wanted more flexibility while introducing as little changes to the governance cycle as possible. This was done through adhering to the initial goals of the cycle: keeping the total cycle length the same and keeping deadlines predictable and memorable (Mondays and Thursdays).

Framework Change Log Summary

| Original | Change | Reasoning | | --- | --- | --- | | The beginning of the Governance cycle starts with Phase 0 and Phase 1 starts in Week 2. | Phase 1 starts at the beginning of the Governance Cycle/Sprint. Remove "Phase 0". Instead, anyone can start a pre-Phase 1 proposal at any time as a regular forum post under the label "Discussion." | This would give two weeks for Phase 1 review and discussion and reduce confusion about "Phase 0". | | No proposal freeze period. | Proposal changes are not allowed (“frozen” state) after the Thursday 23:59 UTC of Week 2. | This ensures open questions/comments are completed in a timely manner and avoids any drastic changes for delegates and guardians signaling. | | Voting period is 12 days and ends Monday/on the same day as the first day of a new Governance cycle. | Add a reflection period by shorting Voting Period to Friday / 9 days, with the following Friday - Sunday as the reflection period. Update the Snapshot Space voting length from 12 to 9 days. The new cycle starts Monday as usual. | This gives time for results to settle before starting the next cycle. |

The proposal will go into effect in the immediate cycle following the ratification.

“Changes Visualized”

Before

After

Smaller informal changes:

• With this amendment, Guardians can signal as early as the start of the governance cycle (Phase 1) until the Phase 1 signal deadline. Guardians can also withdraw their signal at any time if there are changes beyond their original signal.
• Proposers no longer need to create separate forum posts to move into Phase 1.
• No matter what phase, changes to the proposal must always be logged and shared as a comment on the proposal thread for visibility.
• Proposals with integrations/dependencies on Wallet and Core require explicit sign-off on the forum from a member of the Safe Wallet and Core team. Defined as “Sign-Off” (Approved to move forward), “Request for Modification” (requested changes that once implemented, would allow the teams to sign off. However, a clear/viable option from the author must be presented, otherwise can move to a Block), or “Block” (Proposal is unable to move forward due to legal, technical, not inline with the goals/objectives of Wallet/Core, or other reasons).

Changes to the Governance Framework

Original

E. Annex 2: Proposal and voting sprints

| Weeks | Stage | Weekly Schedule | Time | Description | Who? | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Week 1 | Discussion | Monday | 0:01 UTC | Start of proposal cycle (Proposals may also be posted in the forum before this date to maximize feedback during Phase 0) | Authors of proposals | | Week 2 | Discussion/Review | Monday | 23:59 UTC | Deadline to post proposal to forum for Phase 1/Start of signaling on proposal maturity | Authors of proposals | | Week 2 | Review | Wednesday | TBD | Proposal review call to present and discuss proposals with community | Authors of proposals; Delegates; Guardians; Everyone interested | | Week 3 | Review | Monday | 23:59 UTC | Deadline for signaling on proposal maturity | Delegates; Guardians | | Week 3 | Submission to Snapshot | Tuesday | 23:59 UTC | Deadline submission of eligible proposals to Snapshot | Safe Ecosystem Foundation (subject to change) or anyone with 20k Safe token | | Week 3 | Voting | Wednesday | 0:01 UTC | Start voting delay | None | | Week 3 | Voting | Thursday | 0:01 UTC | Voting starts | Everyone eligible to vote | | Week 5 | Voting | Monday | 23:59 UTC | Voting ends | Everyone eligible to vote | | Week 5/Week 1 | Discussion | Monday | 0:01 UTC | Start of next proposal cycle | Authors of proposals |

New

E. Annex 2: Proposal and voting sprints

| Weeks | Stage | Weekly Schedule | Time | Description | Who? | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Week 1 | Phase 1 Draft | Monday | 0:01 UTC | Start of proposal cycle (Proposals may also be posted in the forum before this date to maximize feedback during Phase 1) | Authors of proposals | | Week 2 | Review | Wednesday | TBD | Proposal review call to present and discuss proposals with community | Authors of proposals; Delegates; Guardians; Everyone interested | | Week 2 | Phase 1 Draft | Thursday | 23:59 UTC | Proposal Freeze. Deadline for proposals to submit to Phase 1 | Authors of proposals | | Week 3 | Review | Monday | 23:59 UTC | Deadline for signaling on proposal maturity | Delegates; Guardians | | Week 3 | Submission to Snapshot | Tuesday | 23:59 UTC | Deadline submission of eligible proposals to Snapshot | Safe Ecosystem Foundation (subject to change) or anyone with 20k Safe token | | Week 3 | Voting | Wednesday | 0:01 UTC | Start voting delay | None | | Week 3 | Voting | Thursday | 0:01 UTC | Voting starts | Everyone eligible to vote | | Week 4 | Voting | Thursday | 23:59 UTC | Voting ends | Everyone eligible to vote | | Week 4/5 | Reflection | Friday - Sunday | 23:59 UTC | Reflection period | Authors of proposals; Delegates; Guardians; Everyone interested | | Week 5/Week 1 | Discussion | Monday | 0:01 UTC | Start of next proposal cycle | Authors of proposals |

| Original | New | | :---- | :---- | | E. Annex 3, 1. Phase 0: Optional discussion stage | E. Annex 3, 1. ~~Phase 0:~~ Optional discussion stage | | Anyone can submit a proposal. Based on the proposal’s maturity, determined by a self-assessment from the authors, they can choose to submit the proposal to either Phase 0 or directly to Phase 1. Phase 0 is optional, but recommended when discussing new ideas, since a successful proposal will need to garner momentum inside of the community. For this the proposal needs to be - Submitted to a new discussion thread on the forum in Phase 0 - Marked with [Discussion] in the title. | ~~Anyone can submit a proposal. Based on the proposal’s maturity, determined by a self-assessment from the authors, they can choose to submit the proposal to either Phase 0 or directly to Phase 1.~~ Phase 1 starts at the beginning of the Governance Cycle/Sprint. Anyone can start a pre-Phase 1 proposal as a regular forum post under the label "Discussion." ~~Phase 0~~ Discussion is optional, but recommended when discussing new ideas, since a successful proposal will need to garner momentum inside of the community. ~~For this the proposal needs to be - Submitted to a new discussion thread on the forum in Phase 0 - Marked with [Discussion] in the title~~ |

Original E. Annex 3: Proposal submission

New E. Annex 3: Proposal submission

| Original | New | | :---- | :---- | | E. Annex 3, 2. Phase 1: Official draft stage | E. Annex 3, 2. Phase 1: Official draft stage | | If the authors determined by a self-assessment believe that the proposal is mature enough to vote on it (either after Phase 0 or directly), then it must be 1. Submitted as a new discussion thread on the forum in Phase 1. 2. If there was a previous discussion in Phase 0 add a link to it. 3. Marked with [Draft] in the title. 4. Formatted and contain information consistent with the proposal template in Annex 2. | If the authors determined by a self-assessment believe that the proposal is mature enough to vote on it, ~~(either after Phase 0 or directly),~~ then it must be 1. Submitted as a new discussion thread on the forum in Phase 1 2. If there was a previous discussion ~~in Phase 0~~ add a link to it. 3. Marked with [Draft] in the title. 4. Formatted and contain information consistent with the proposal template in Annex 2. |

|Original|New| | --- | --- | |I. Annex 2: Proposal Template|I. Annex 2: Proposal Template| |[NOTE if Phase 0: Proposals in this section (i.e., phase 0) do not need to follow a certain structure like SEP proposals (i.e., phase 1) need to do. Nevertheless, we advise you to adopt the following template to the extent possible. This helps the reader better understanding your proposal in context and minimizes your workload needed later once the proposal transforms into an SEP.]|[NOTE if ~~Phase 0: Proposals in this section (i.e., phase 0)~~ Proposals in discussion do not need to follow a certain structure like SEP proposals (i.e., phase 1) need to do. Nevertheless, we advise you to adopt the following template to the extent possible. This helps the reader better understanding your proposal in context and minimizes your workload needed later once the proposal transforms into an SEP.]|

Effects and Impact Analysis

This amendment introduces new deadlines (such as Freeze Period) as well as changes to deadline times. Introducing a new deadline may also mean 2 more notifications (Freeze Period and Reflection Period) to signal deadlines.

Changes can introduce the following risks:

Scenario 1: Voters are not aware of the new cycle and creates confusion during the next voting cycle.

Mitigation: The only change for voters is the new deadline of Thursday instead of Monday. The amendment proposal was submitted earlier in Discussion phase to increase visibility and awareness. Additionally, the amendment will be proposed and discussed in the Governance Call prior to voting to maximize awareness. In the following weeks before and after the amendment goes into effect, there will be additional communication on telegram, twitter, and forum to remind voters of the new voting cycle.

Alternative Solutions

We considered a few alternatives:

1. Option 1: Break up the suggested amendments into separate proposals and deploy updates incrementally.

   This option could be feasible, however incremental changes to timelines could cause more confusion, so we opted to create smaller changes that would maximize impact.

2. Option 2: Increase Reflection Period time.

   This option can be possible in the future. While there were valid points to having a longer reflection period, increasing the Reflection Period would require shifting the voting period and/or total cycle length. At this moment, we did not find enough friction to create a larger shift.

3. Option 3: Keep cycle as is.

   We considered this option, therefore we kept the cycle for a few sprints before suggesting an amendment.

Implementation

[ ] Own implementation possible [ ] Own implementation but with funding (how much % to implementation) [X] Request for technical support through Safe matter experts

• Requires updating the Snapshot strategy to reduce the voting period time

Open Questions

• Given the timing of the cycle, how might we formalize an ample amount of time for Core and Wallet teams to provide a sign-off? (Context in this discussion)

Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.