Towards a Governance Framework for SafeDAO

Proposals General
21

TDLR;
Paintpoint

  • Address lack of initial proposal screening
  • Establish a clear path for revisiting rejected proposals

Initial ideas

  • Introduce temperature check phase for SEPs
  • Implement a process for re-evaluating unsuccessful proposals

I appreciate the initiative taken in starting this thread to gather feedback and identify areas for improvement within the SafeDAO Governance Process. Based on the purpose and desired output of this thread, I’d like to contribute by addressing the issue of:

Lack of Initial Proposal Screening: right now there is not official process for screening SEPs, where proposals that lacks community interest or support could advance to the voting stage, resulting in wasted time and effort. Proposals that do not generate sufficient interest can consume valuable community resources that could be allocated to more promising initiatives.

No Clear Path for Revisiting Rejected Proposals: In the absence of a defined process for re-evaluating unsuccessful proposals, valuable ideas may be lost or overlooked due to initial rejection.

Here are some of my initial ideas on how we could effectively tackle these problems:

Temperature Check Phase for SEPs - The temperature check serves as an initial indicator of community interest and sentiment towards a proposed change. This helps ensure that only proposals with substantial support progress to the voting stage, promoting active community engagement and meaningful discussions. Eg. Uniswap temperature check.

Re-evaluating Unsuccessful Proposals

Implementing a process for re-evaluating unsuccessful proposals could address the current lack of guidelines for revisiting rejected proposals, fostering continuous improvement within the SafeDAO ecosystem. Here are some suggestions for integrating this aspect into the governance process:

  1. Introduce a “cooling-off period” for unsuccessful proposals, granting authors time to refine their proposals and gather additional feedback from the community.
  2. Urge authors of rejected proposals to collaborate with other community members or stakeholders to refine their ideas and address concerns raised during the initial voting process.
  3. Create a dedicated forum section or thread for discussing and refining rejected proposals, offering a platform for community members to exchange thoughts and suggestions.
  4. Adopt a transparent tracking system for rejected proposals, enabling community members to monitor the author’s progress and refinements, and express their interest in reconsidering a specific proposal.

I look forward to further discussions and insights from fellow community members to help refine these ideas and help ultimately shape the upcoming ‘Governance Process v2’ proposal.

7 Likes