1. gov forum → “sufficient support”
I completely agree that this step is unclear.
Right now, “sufficient support” is based only on subjective opinion.
In addition, there is no media support or communication from HoS.
Most people in the ecosystem don’t even know that proposals exist or that they are expected to comment on them.
This is exactly why we need a proper media and communication framework, as suggested in this proposal:
https://gov.near.org/t/hsp-005-house-of-stake-social-media-governance-operations-charter/41692
At the same time, censorship by NF contractors (Community Squad) in chats and even on this forum must be removed.
In my view, the forum should simply serve as a temperature check:
• share the idea
• collect feedback
• allow open discussion
Whether someone comments or not should be their choice —
but this step must not become a blocker or an unofficial gate for the Screening Committee to decide what moves forward.
2. Submit to GitHub and it gets merged → by whom, based on what criteria?
In the current process, every author manually uploads their proposal,
and there is no agreed template or format.
3. Submit to gov.houseofstake.org and it gets whitelisted by reviewers
Reviewers use the mandate criteria — in theory, that makes sense.
However, I have a serious concern:
These mandates can be interpreted flexibly to block proposals that NF or certain individuals do not like.
How do we prevent this?
One possible solution:
• Implement an AI agent that evaluates proposals objectively against the mandate.
• The AI outputs a transparent pass/fail result with clear reasoning.
• Reviewers cannot “bend” the mandate based on personal or political preference.
This is especially important because some proposals directly affect members of the Screening Committee themselves.
What guarantees that they will not interpret the mandate in their own favor and block proposals that challenge their position.