ICCP: Proposal Process Optimization

[valid mantle]

Illuvium Community

It is my pleasure to share what I believe to be an improvement to Gov v2. it will reduce the proposal throughput to potentially a minimum of 5 days while ensuring the core proposal is maintained.

DAO Governance is an iterative process. In an effort to clarify and improve the proposal process I propose the changes with in this ICCP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CImx9X4JP1BjHqOual_bhRbO3fleJt9mdVxZh_wvKbM/edit?usp=sharing

Main Points:
1.) Addition of a "Sponsor". A person who will ensure the intent of the proposal is maintained throughout the process. Including amendments made by sub councils.

2.) Sub council authority to designate which specialized council a proposal will go through.

3.) IMC will now have three options to vote on a proposal:
Approved
Rejected
Pending Amendments

4.) Establish timelines at each stage

5.) Establish a path to expedite a proposals

6.) Establish extension policies

I would like to thank @granite charm, @magic venture, @cunning arch , and the <@&1107754494466469919> for assisting in the development of this ICCP.

Together we will make the most efficient and democratic Gaming DAO in the world.

[rugged meteor]

1. Can we do something about 25 upvotes? There was talk about that before. Is there any ideas on how to change or improve that?

2. Is it possible to close the voting on snapshot in less than 3 days? Not sure how can the vote be done in one day? Because a council member can change there vote once it's been voted. Also, there is a question of: are we waiting for 3 votes that will be enough, or are we waiting for 5?

3. It's a bit unclear how will the voting of IMC work. What happens in case of 2-2-1 votes?

4. Do we really need the veto from sponsor? If sponsors wants to veto, and the council think the proposal is good, they can just submit the idea once again with a different sponsor?
   I agree with "recommended for all council levels to liaise with the sponsor throughout the process" but I don't think sponsor needs to have a veto power.

5. On third IMC vote we can just make it so there is only Approved and Rejected...

[granite charm]

1. The bulk of the improvement possible would revolve around web-based governance, which isn't a high priority compared to other development right now. The specific number of upvotes necessary will have to scale with engagement and/or player base until we can implement a better system.

2. We believe so, further testing will be required to confirm this, but that can be completed prior to this proposal passing at the IMC level. Basically, we just need to make a test Snapshot. If the functionality to close voting when all 5 votes are placed works successfully, none of the below applies.

Within the current Snapshot setup (i.e. if we cannot close voting when all 5 votes have been placed), my recommendation would be to require a unanimous vote for a proposal to conclude before the 3 day period is over. The outcome changing would require a majority (3/5) of council members to change their vote. It's an extremely unlikely scenario, and since council members would be informed of this proposal, it wouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the 5th member to vote for or against a proposal would effectively be "locking in" the vote to be approved or rejected.

The intent here is that if we have uncontentious proposals, they can be expedited through the voting process. This is a major improvement for time sensitive issues.

3. A "Pending Amendments" vote would, to my understanding, be counted as a "Rejected" vote in the event of a 2-2-1 split. This specification was discussed, but should be clarified in the draft.

4. We felt fairly strongly that the sponsor should be able to veto a proposal that had been modified to not meet their original intent. It's important for community members to be able to move proposals to a vote and have their intention maintained, and this structure puts a level of accountability on council members to justify their approval/rejection, and ensures the sponsor is involved in any changes to their proposal.

5. That's true. There's no reason to have pending amendments for the third vote.

[plush flume]

1. I suggest adding what happens if sponsor does not respond and give it a timeline (3 days = Automatic Approval by sponsor for example)

2. I suggest a veto from sponsor does not kill the idea just forces it to go back and gain community support.

[rugged meteor]

2. Veto currently forces Specialized Sub-Council to edit the Proposal once again. So it's not really killing the idea. And I guess you can also go back and gain community support no matter what?

[rugged meteor]

2. When I suggested that before Rich said it wasn't possible (then). Hopefully something changed as I think that would be a great improvement.
   We all know it's really unlikely that 3 people will change their votes, or even two. But in case of that happening once. It would be really awesome to have all of that in writing. And I fully support your idea (if Snapshot cannot close voting) that we consider voting closed once there are 5 unanimous votes.
   I would say @magic venture is an expert here because we need to make it so that it's fair and legal. Because if 5 people votes 'Approve' and we consider it approved. And then 3 people change their minds somehow. Snapshow will have that proposal as Rejected. While in reality is was approved. I just think we need to find a way to never let that happen.

3. 2-2-1 vote can be:
   2 Approved, 2 Rejected, 1 Pending Amendments
   2 Approved, 2 Pending Amendments, 1 Rejected
   2 Rejected, 2 Pending Amendments, 1 Approved

I think we need to clarify what happens in each of them. When is it rejected and when it goes to editing again.

[granite charm]

I think the solution is to have pending amendments ALWAYS count as "Rejected" when there isn't a majority for any one option. That would be my preference.

In your examples, all of those would be counted as "Rejected". To me, this makes the most sense, as "Pending Amendments" means the proposal is not passable in its' current state. It's closer to a rejection than it is to anything else.

[rugged meteor]

But there is a difference from it being Rejected and it being thrown back to Specialized Sub-Council for edits.

I just think we have to make it clear in the ICCP or edited Gov V2 doc how it will work if we're going to implement that. However it will work in the end.

[plush flume]

Right right, I was imagining a triple veto (what if sponsors intent wasn't communities interpretation with 25 upvotes) But in that case like you said an idea could always go back to the community with a different sponsor

[plush flume]

I would keep it as just rejected and approved as the snapshot option. Then IMC could state in council chambers notes if the IMC member would like amendments

[granite charm]

Agreed, it should be specified clearly.

Appreciate the feedback, and yours as well @plush flume

[magic venture]

A vote to revise should be counted as "Rejected" but the process just allows it to go down to the SC for further revisions. So anything other than a 3 Approval is rejected. Theres just branching off when it comes to the rejection. In @rugged meteor example of 2-2-1 (Approve, Revise, Outright Reject). "Rejected" wins but it goes down to SC (2:1).

Want to shoutout to @valid mantle for doing a great job here. One of my earliest concerns when gov v2 was being drafted is the red tape (timelines) and this helps really push out the proposals faster.

[tidal mesa]

I think 25 upvotes is very arbitrary. I'm sure there are good ideas with less impressions. Shouldn't we do something like if 3-4 community sub-council upvotes can move the process to the specialized subcouncil. After all the council is elected to represent people's opinions. So 3 community sub-council should be able to move the process forward if there are not that many downvotes.

[urban geode]

If the council/sponsor/ DAO can’t pitch the need for a proposal in such a way as to motivate 25 people to take the action to click the thumbs up I think that’s a problem.

I’d assume the problem would be general lack of engagement/awareness, lack of clarity, or lack of support.

[urban geode]

“Pending Amendments” sounds like Approved if specific amendments are made and further votes would not be occurring. Something like “Revisions Needed” or “Requires Amending” makes more sense to me.

[magic venture]

Reasonable change to nomenclature. I like.

[rugged meteor]

What happens with 2 revise 2 reject?

Also, what is your opinion on finishing voting early when in reality people can still change their votes?

Is there an option to lock votes once somebody voted in snapshot so he/she can’t change his/her vote again?

[plush flume]

Again I think it is cleaner if we ditch revise as a snapshot option and just allow it to be captured in the council-chambers. If majority want revision then it's up to sub-coucil to do the revisions and go through the process.

[valid mantle]

I want to thank @granite charm and @magic venture for fielding questions. And a really appreciate the community for participation. Here are my notes on what seems unresolved.

2.) I'm fairly confident @mint breach has stated he can close the vote and move to the next stage(Please confirm). and it would be a very easy vote of no confidence if a member changes their votes after all five has placed them.

3.) Will be clarified in the doc but, this is how the scenarios will unfold:

2 Approved, 2 Rejected, 1 Pending Amendments = Rejected
2 Approved, 2 Pending Amendments, 1 Rejected = Pending amendments
2 Rejected, 2 Pending Amendments, 1 Approved = Pending amendments

Yes, will add that clause @plush flume "automatic approval if no response from the sponsor"

@tidal mesa This number was set based on the size of the full governace(20) then getting 5 outside from the community. I think its safe to say we don't have a very active governance community right now. I think the highest we have seen support go is around 40 votes. As we grow we will scale this.

@plush flume I believe we can keep the 3 voting options for imc and there is no need to change the options after the 3rd vote @rugged meteor . It will just flow to rejected anyways if after the third edit. However this allows the imc member to share their voice via the vote to say, "I think there is something here. it just needs to be amended." Better visibility to understand the council members and where they stand. Writing in the council chambers can be edited and is really hard to track several proposal down the line. Being able to see clearly on the voting page is better in my opinion.

@urban geode I also approve "Revisions Needed"

Three changes have been applied and can be seen as comments on the doc:
3.) Add: If the sponsor does not voice an opinion it will be assumed approved and move to the IMC.
5.) Replaced: Pending amendments changed to Revisions needed.
5.) Added: Tiebreakers will flow by the following:
2 Approved, 2 Rejected, 1 Revisions Needed = Rejected
2 Approved, 2 Revisions Needed, 1 Rejected = Pending amendments
2 Rejected, 2 Revisions Needed, 1 Approved = Pending amendments

[rugged meteor]

3. I don’t see how 2 rejected - 1 pending is rejected but 2 rejected - 2 pending is pending amendments…. You also need to look at approved votes there…. And we punish people for voting approved instead of pending?

So that has to change and it should be in a doc.

My biggest problem with upvotes is that for example: 25 upvotes and 40 downvotes is good enough but 24 upvotes and 1 downvote is not?

[plush flume]

One thing I would love is to immortalize council chambers notes some how, maybe in github?

[rugged meteor]

A bit off topic for this proposal. But we are talking about it a lot. If Illuvium is not close to doing Governance website. We would be open in doing something like that (similar to what we did for election) just for proposals, voting, council voting, etc. So if that’s something that’s interesting to the council, you know where to find us.

[valid mantle]

I did that incorrectly this is how I would want it to play out:

2 Approved, 2 Rejected, 1 Revisions Needed = Pending amendments
2 Approved, 2 Revisions Needed, 1 Rejected = Pending amendments
2 Rejected, 2 Revisions Needed, 1 Approved = Rejected

I want to caution on the side of revisions. So that a proposal does not restart and have to go through the whole process again if some revisions could get it through. Revisions and Approvals are more supportive that the proposal will be good for the DAO.

[valid mantle]

I do belive the Gov Website would make that possible once its up. Then it would also be easy to track down opinions if the UI is set up properly.

[plush flume]

I'd count revisions as approved. All your examples would be pending amendments. Only when you get to 3 rejected, 2 revisions = rejected

[rugged meteor]

I would still argue that all of this should go back to revision. As there is possibility of having 3 approvals post revision?
Maybe having 3 approvals for approval, 3 rejected for rejection and 2-2-1 going back to revision?

[valid mantle]

Like I said I like to lean on the side of revisions but this was a compromise to the opposition that a proposal just floating around for a long time could also be problematic.

This will go to strategy council most likely and I will let them make final edits to determine what they think is best. But I think for now this is how I'm going to leave it. I do appreciate both of your feedback throughout the whole doc.

[plush flume]

But you are punishing an approval.
In this example: 2 Rejected, 2 Revisions Needed, 1 Approved = Rejected
If the approved moved to revisions needed we would be at 2 Rejected, 3 Revisions Needed = Pending amendments?

[valid mantle]

That is a fair point and @rugged meteor pointed it out earlier I didn't see it. Then I would propose all 2-2-1 situation are pending amendments. @granite charm and @magic venture do y'all agree with this?

[magic venture]

Agree. In the spirit of expediting the process and efficiency, in cases where there are 2 rejected and 2 revisions needed, we should put more weight to revisions to avoid having a revised IIP go through the whole process.