[Vote] Proposal & Voting Rules

Hey everyone! Please take a minute and vote on this proposal. It is the same proposal discussed over the last two weeks. There were no additional suggestions for modifications. The only thing I changed was subCategory Crew to subDAO Reps #3 (proposal rules).
Here is the link to the corresponding [Discussion]

1. Proposal Purpose:

The main goals for this proposal are to structure and formalize the proposal and voting processes in Discourse:

  • Creating a proposal takes place on Discourse and is intended to have a concise motion to be voted upon.
  • Voting signals participation and helps the community evolve.

2. Grape Proposal Overview:

Voting period: 04/12/21 to 11/12/21 (1 Week)

If accepted, the following will be in effect after the vote closes:

Proposals:

  1. Proposals need to be created on Discourse.
  2. Proposals need to be posted in the correct subCategory.
  3. Each subCategory is managed by the subDAO Reps responsible for organizing and prioritizing the subDAO’s proposals to the DAO (decisions that are not solely within the subDAO’s purview).
  4. There are 3 different types of proposals:
    a. Non-Funding: Any proposal that doesn’t (re)allocate funds or changes the governance structure.
    b. Funding: Any proposal that (re)allocates funds but doesn’t change the governance structure.
    c. Governance: Any proposal that changes the governance structure of the DAO or subDAO.
  5. Each Funding and Governance proposal needs to have a prior [Discussion] thread.
  6. Each proposal with a mandatory [Discussion] thread needs to link to this discussion.
  7. Each proposal intended to be voted upon should be about a single issue.
  8. Each topic can contain more than one proposal.
  9. Each proposal should give the option for an abstention.
  10. Each proposal intended to be voted upon needs to be in [English] or needs to contain a translated abstract.
  11. A proposal shouldn’t be edited or amended once posted; a proposal can’t be edited after the first vote is cast.

Voting:

  1. The default duration required for a voting period on a proposal to reach completion is 1 week.
  2. The duration of the vote can be extended by the author. This needs to be done before the first vote is cast.
  3. The voting period of Non-Funding proposals can be expedited to 3 days.
  4. A vote is considered viable when at least 10 people voted on it.
  5. Every DOA member has 1 vote per ballot.
  6. Each abstention is counting towards the threshold.
  7. A vote is considered passed when there are more votes for one option than for any other (except abstentions).
  8. A tie is considered a rejection.
  9. Voting against a proposal should be followed by a short reason, if not already given.

3. Stakeholders

GRAPE community, specifically DAO members

4. Costs/Resource Requirements:

GRAPE Community Treasury Management & Execution

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstention

0 voters

4 Likes

I generally agree with the proposal & need to set voting rules but I would recommend abstention be disregarded in voting.

Also, 10 votes is too low for a DAO that is 60+ members. I would suggest making the minimum 20 votes, or, minimum of 30% of overall DAO.

5 Likes

Id vote to remove any quorum requirement at this point. We on average have 25-50 viewers of our Discourse daily

With the 3-7 day requirement for all proposals, it’s realistic to think everyone has an equitable opportunity to vote or voice their opinion

the downside of never reaching quorum is such a massive problem, we should ensure that things move forward. If we had a proposal type that was faster than 48 hours, id see a reason to consider it, but as is, it would be a hindrance

2 Likes

That’s an interesting development @Arximedis & @DeanMachine, would’ve been great if we could’ve discussed this prior to voting in the [Discussion] though.
I chose 10 after looking at our previous proposals. I tend to lean towards a higher threshold as Arximedis suggested but I also can see your point, Dean. We can’t have it that good proposals aren’t implemented due to a lack of voting participants. That’s why I opted to count abstentions towards the threshold. I generally think that DAO members can be expected to at least read proposals with ongoing voting and if they can’t decide, they can abstain. If they fear that abstention isn’t the right choice and that the proposal isn’t a good idea, they can reject it.

At some point, we need to have a quorum-based element in our decision-making process and one can always argue that this will potentially impede some proposals due to not reaching the threshold. But that is that’s exactly why there is a threshold is in place. If not enough people care to at least read a proposal + abstain, then we have a different problem that needs to be addressed.

What we could do is implement the 10-vote-threshold as a requirement for DAO proposals only and don’t have it in subDAO votes. Would this be something that accommodates and addresses both of your concerns?

4 Likes

I agree with most of this. But if our DAO voting patterns are any indication, Deans approach is best for now. Maybe even making it simpler for people to vote, potentially voting in Discord itself as it seems to be more frequented than Discourse.

But that’s the point, right? We need (DAO) members to participate. Voting needs to be easy and the proposals need to be well accessible. That’s why I suggested having an additional Discord channel where only proposals that have a vote are shown. This way, everyone can directly see where their attention needs to be.
On top of that, we need to keep track of everything and it must be well organized. Discord can’t do that for us, especially not for more complex proposals with prior discussions.

As I said, I generally think that DAO members can be expected to at least read proposals with ongoing votes once a week and if they can’t decide, they can abstain. I don’t like settling for lower standards out of convenience.
Also, if we see that it hinders us, we can change it.

2 Likes

Vote closed and passed!

I believe we should utilize your suggestion and create a separate channel Only for Discourse proposals and not comments as we have in the original DAO chat.
The format could have the link, Time left to vote and quick synopsis (like it already shows on this channel), as well as tagging @.DAO every time a proposal is sent out.

Format:
-Title
-Time left to vote
-Link

All in the name of accessibility and convenience w/o sacrificing standards.

1 Like

That’s why I suggested having an additional Discord channel where only proposals that have a vote are shown

Yes this. Ideally proposals also have an ID for easier reference (I assume that will be easier onchain)

To avoid confusion, voting options should be clearly distinguished w/o requiring users to look in the discussion thread.
ex: “Option A” would not fulfil this, “Option A - Change x to y” would.

5 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.