The CommunitySquad DAO – as the main source for $NEAR distribution to members of the NEAR Community – is sent payout proposals on an ongoing basis, but especially at the end of the month as Guilds report on their activity and upcoming plans.
To address payout proposal failure and voting delays, and to encourage good governance practices, the following proposal seeks to address a core problem:
The CommunitySquad DAO Council members do not feel adequately acquainted with the proposals coming in and how voting parameters are determined. The flurry of incoming proposals results in reactionary, uninformed Council voting and general confusion for many. The request has been made for weekly (if possible) meetings to discuss ‘Voting in Progress’ and expected SputnikDAO payout proposals. However, the current voting period of 7 days does not allow for space for deliberation.
I would like to propose we extend the CommunitySquad DAO voting period from 7 to 14 days to allow for every-other-week meetings to all be able to discuss these payout proposals properly. This would be in addition to the updates the Guilds Management Crew, et al. send to the MarCom Slack channel as conversations develop with Guild leaders and Ecosystem Development efforts unfold. Other DAOs in the Ecosystem have voting periods for up to 30 days, so this extensions seems to be a good compromise.
It is important to note that this extension would not lessen our urgency to pass through proposals swiftly so community members can easily receive funding for their proposals, and this extension would even potentially prove helpful to the Community as hopefully greater time and space for Council discussion would result in fewer proposals expiring (requiring individuals to re-post).
For consideration - vice extending the voting period, another option would be to do all the discussion/detail and fact finding prior to pushing a proposal into the voting period. Once decision quality info is avail and summarized making it simple for members to grasp and vote on, then submit the proposal for a vote. That way, the deliberations can take as long as they take, everyone can ask the questions needed/get responses. It may also facilitate a rolling proposal preparation/submission/voting process vice asking for all proposals by a certain date/time and then trying to cram decisions into a fixed period.
Don’t mean to shill Catalyst (k, maybe a little ) - but that’s how we’re handling things. Anyone can submit a proposal and then it sits in the pre-vote area awaiting sponsorship. While there, it is discussed, questions asked, responses given until it reaches a point where there is enough detail/info provided so that all members who intend to vote are well informed. At that point, someone sponsors the proposal which sends it into the voting period. Because all the discussion has already happened, can keep a relatively short voting period - long enough to give active members a chance to vote, but voting period isn’t about debate/discussion - that’s already happened.
Same thing can happen now with Sputnik DAOs as well. Just have to move the pre-vote discussion into the forum - and just signal to people when their proposal is ready for voting to submit it to the DAO. Maybe that happens after a bi-weekly meeting where you review the existing proposals up for discussion, decide which are ready for voting, which need more info, and so on. Of course, standardizing proposals/info required for quick decisions will also help alleviate some of the brainpower that needs to go into decision making (i.e., aim to automate approvals based on meeting X criteria)
Remember Parkinson’s Law - the old adage that “work expands to fill the time allotted.” People tend to leave work to the very last minute - ultimately I think you’ll probably find yourself in a similar situation wondering where the space for deliberation went whether the voting period is 7 days or 14 days. Be an interesting experiment though.
Hey @ALuhning! Thank you for your input - and Parkinson’s Law does often end up being unerringly correct without a doubt.
Ideally, to my mind, we would all be using Catalyst tomorrow (which I think you know ) and in the meantime, we can encourage Guilds/community members to post as much as possible on the Forum detailing what they’re up to so there’s no question of voting their proposal through - because the work and trust are there - but the reality is many groups won’t, so there may only be insights and details that can be conveyed right now through real time communication/contact. We’re working on this, but in the meantime, for every funding proposal that comes in, we do try to interact with it as much as possible on the Forum as much for our own understanding and deliberation, as to strengthen the pitch. And to be as transparent as possible about our processes and thinking, of course! I’ll definitely bring up in the meeting tomorrow that the CS DAO Council should make a point of commenting on more of the Forum posts as part of their ongoing deliberation process so these meetings can be saved for any current or upcoming exceptional cases.
We’ll see how the experiment goes!
Update: this has been voted through and we had our first internal meeting discussion. As a result of this discussion, we were able to vote through all “voting in progress” proposals that were in to the CommunitySquad DAO at the time of the meeting.
Looking forward to continuing this experiment and to bringing over more of our discussions on an ongoing basis onto the Forum as well, as Council members were encouraged to post upcoming proposals that were shared during the call on the Forum also. We can expect to see in the coming days more info about cool NEAR projects from @ross and @jcatnear at least to start!