In my opinion, we should accept the agreement as it is for now to limit the potential liability of everyone who will participate in the first and the following voting. After the first version, the community could initiate a second iteration to address the issues of the first version of the proposal, e.g. the uncertainty of when a DAO participation begins and ends.
4 Likes
Hello ! When you sent SEP to snapshot ? Now is new week
1 Like
Now that the proposal has been updated based on everyoneās feedback. I suggest to leave it open for a final review for another six days from the update, i.e. until Oct 17.
@Bruce I agree with you that the proposal seems ready for a Snapshot vote already today. However, our current governance process requires a proposal to be open for review for at least six days. We have yet to define more granularly whether the waiting period also applies to changed proposals, and if so whether exceptions will be made (obvious examples are changing typos or format). Even though this last update here was arguably a minor change, I suggest to apply the waiting period of six days still, just to maintain a high standard in SafeDAOās governance and lead by example.
Unless the proposal needs another update in the meantime, I endorse it to be moved to phase 2 after Oct 17.
5 Likes
Common sense dictates that small changes to proposals should not necessitate a restart in the review period. Otherwise, a proposal can be changed ad infinitum and never reach snapshot.
3 Likes
Agreed. Letās bring this to a vote Monday 17th. I feel participation with quickly fall as time frames are extended and red tape is increased.
Everyone has claimed their tokens that are going to at this point. We canāt reset the community review period each time a small change is made. The review period should be when the small changes are made. If it were the former, we would never move any objectives forward.
To be clear, I fully agree with you both! I did not think resetting the review period was necessary at all in this case, my intention was just to keep our soft governance / non-onchain governance to a high standard from the beginning. After 11:06 AM UTC today, six days have passed, so at this point Iād argue itās worth waiting for another hour - but not much longer.
For future proposals, we should agree on a short amendment to [HOW TO] SafeDAO Governance Process, please see my suggestion here. Would appreciate to hear your thoughts!
1 Like
Hey SafeDAO community,
With this proposal having passed > six days in Phase 1 on the forum as outlined in the SafeDAO Governance Process, Iāve taken the liberty as a Delegate to submit the proposal to the SafeDAO Snapshot following the guidelines: 1-day voting delay and a 7-day vote duration.
You can find SIP#1 Snapshot vote here - excited to reach this milestone together!
9 Likes
Nice, limited liability for SafeDAO is a good start.
2 Likes
I have been entrusted with some delegated SAFE by some people as I have shown active participation in governance for various DAOs.
I am really interested to see how SAFE will evolve as a DAO and have a vested interest to see it succeed. As such will be following governance and participate where possible.
As for this specific proposal, though sounds interesting and if at least as presented may reduce liability for DAO participants, I am obliged to vote to abstain as I am simply not a lawyer and as such in no position to judge the effectiveness and validity of the proposed text which is rather legalese.
5 Likes
Indeed, it isā¦ we should actively participate in it.
This proposal [SEP #1] SafeDAO Participation Agreement has moved to phase 2 for a Snapshot vote:
Start date of vote: Oct 18, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC
End date of vote: Oct 25, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC
Following the Snapshot vote, the quorum was met and the proposal was accepted.
2 Likes