VDP-12 Governance Framework Amendment #1

NOTE: This is a duplicate of an on chain proposal from prior to VitaDAO's using snapshot, and is present here for completeness on snapshot. No snapshot vote occurred.

Summary

We suggest improving parts of VDP-1 to improve our governance processes. Next to a more flexible phase 1, we propose a new template and more transparency during phase 2, as well as a new 7-day vote in batches during phase 3. Authors of successful proposals should follow up with a retrospective.

Proposal Details

Motivation

VDP-1 VitaDAO Governance Framework was a tremendous milestone as it gave birth to the DAO-part of VitaDAO and enabled us all to discuss, decide and move forward in a systematic and decentralised, yet also straightforward and efficient way. Since the framework was adopted two months ago, it was put to the test by many community members which resulted in six on-chain votes and many more soft governance decisions.

Two months later, we have a sense of where we can do better. Our diverse community of longevity researchers and blockchain enthusiasts with >100 accounts on our Discourse and >500 wallets holding VITA expressed various concerns where the governance process was unintuitive, complicated or inflexible. This proposal is to amend VDP-1 with several specific points while keeping the tried and trusted parts in place.

Specification

a) Phase 1: More Flexibility

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests allowing more options for phase 1 proposals to move to phase 2.

Moving forward, phase 1 can be completed

• as a thread in the ‘Ideas’ category on Discourse, or

• as a message in a channel on Discord, or

• as a message in a group chat on Discord whereas a phase 1 proposal is considered passed once it has received support from five individuals

• through comments/responses or

• through likes/emoji reactions.

b) Phase 2: Aligning the Specifications with On-Chain Proposals

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests changing the template for phase 2 proposals to match the template of phase 3.

Moving forward, phase 2 proposals should be structured as follows:

• Title → 30-60 characters
• Summary → 200-400 characters in one paragraph
• Details → any length, any formatting, can include images and hyperlinks, must include sections on motivation, specification and implementation
• Single-choice poll with the options “Agree”, “Agree with revisions (please comment)”, and “Disagree”, as described in VDP-1

c) Phase 2: Fostering Informed Decisions

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests introducing measures that make it easier for community members to make an informed decision without requiring an unreasonable amount of their time.

This should include an impact assessment conducted by a working group member who is not the proposal author or part of their team. The impact assessment should flag notable details, including high budgets, fundamental changes of rules and other extraordinary measures.

Moreover, we suggest a mandatory live event, such as an Ask-Me-Anything (AMA) on a conference call, for all proposals before their details are finalised for phase 3. The respective proposal author is responsible for organising this event.

d) Phase 3: Shortening the Duration

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests reducing the voting duration of phase 3 votes from 14 days to 7 days, as well as the voting delay period from 48h to 12h.

e) Phase 3: Batches

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests uploading phase 3 proposals in batches.

This should be seen as the default way to operate, given that voting on several proposals at the same time provides a much better experience to the user than voting once every other week.

It should also merely be seen as a recommendation and time-sensitive proposals may still be uploaded on chain immediately once they qualify for phase 3. If that should be the case, we suggest that proposal authors include a prominent remark in their phase 2 proposal.

f) Post-Phase 3: Retrospectives

No corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests introducing a social contract for proposal authors to report back whether and how their successful proposal was implemented in the form of a retrospective.

The author should revisit the motivation described in the phase 3 proposal and reflect on whether and how the situation has improved. In particular, such a report should provide an analysis of how the provided funds have been used, as well as which parts of the proposal have been implemented and which have not been.

Lastly, the retrospective should include a short summary with the next steps, both as part of ongoing work as part of this proposal as well as recommended action items that the author considers to be outside the scope of this proposal.

Retrospectives should be published as a thread on Discourse in the corresponding working group section no later than at the end of the next quarter following the end of the on-chain vote.

More information

For the full proposal with more details, see the discussion on Discourse here.