I get where you’re coming from and I agree that we can use some structure to check on proposals over their lifetime and archive them, if appropriate. However, I wonder whether a strict rule is the solution here. I wouldn’t want to introduce a rule when no rule is needed (less bureaucracy, minimising governance). Rules are never complete and, at some point, there will probably a proposal that must be discarded as specified in a rule while author+community in fact agree that it should not be discarded.
To mention examples of proposal currently in phases 1 or 0:
- all proposal in phase 1 have been uploaded to Snapshot or are on track
- SAFE Token Utility Proposal deals with a particularly complex matter (token design) which should prioritise quality and not be constrained by an artificial deadline, IMO
- Safe Grants Program (SGP) was effectively backlogged because the Foundation is already working on a grants programme which this proposal could be a second iteration to. In this case, the proposal shouldn’t be archived or dismissed, but just backlogged until its time comes.
- [Discussion] Safe DAO Resource Allocation Model (OBRA) was backlogged because it first needs a product vision which is out of the scope of OBRA. Like before, this proposal should not be dismissed but simply remain backlogged for the time being.
- [SEP #X] Improve Communication in SafeDAO has partially been implemented without requiring a formal vote (Discord channel), was partially already in place (community call) and remains a useful thread to discuss how we can improve our communication. For that reason, I’d rather not archive it but keep it open, either as a proposal or as a non-proposal thread for continued discussion.
- Extend claim deadline for Airdrop is currently blocked by [SEP #5] Redistributing Unredeemed Tokens From User Airdrop Allocation. If SEP #5 results in any pursuit of “allocation B”, that proposal will be a useful starting point or at least contribution to options under “allocation B”.
Instead, I’d rather suggest that we focus on soft governance here, e.g. moderation guidelines that me and the team will follow as well as guidelines for authors to communicate where they stand with their proposal and what kind of support they need to bring it to a final vote.
Technically, proposals that reach phase 1 have actually very few constraints and can move quickly. The current governance process requires a proposal to be in phase 1 for no more than six days, while the amendment proposal discussed in this thread considers an extension of six days after edits. Practically, a proposal author could ignore any comments and move their proposal to Snapshot as soon as a week after it has moved to phase 1 - nobody can prevent that. If there are substantial concerns voiced in the comments which the author ignores, I would expect the proposal to be voted down by the community out of principle – my point is just that the proposal author is free to do so.
This is different for phase 0 proposals:
I agree with @links that the labeling of SEPs (i.e., moving proposals from phase 0 to phase 1) is more of an issue. Currently, labelling SEPs is done by forum admins, usually myself. This has so far been a case-by-case decision where I was in touch with the author, evaluating whether a proposal is mature enough so that can realistically be finalised in six days. There’s also a trade-off in preserving attention span of our vast community: Relatively speaking, we have many proposal in phase 0 and few in phase 1 at any given time. Phase 1 proposal arguably deserve wider attention (including a Twitter shoutout on safegovernance), whereas phase 0 proposal should be refined first.
No doubt that this process can be improved. I’m thinking of at least two parts here:
- Defining what makes a “mature” proposal and introducing some transparency on what has been case-by-case decision making
- Extending the group of admins from myself and team members to others, e.g. selected Guardians
I’ll add this point to the list in the original thread above.