[PASSED] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

[minor phoenix]

Community vote on Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/community.ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0xf619fa0ecf0956d51f4c8c41c3eb072703ec91f3f83b050c272a0c55a5e42271
Strategy vote on Snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/strategy.ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0xb593595f69d56662f6ccdc4549c1e063cf0f55767734279ab0a7859fb65cae06

Discussions: https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1122165628283920465

Simple Summary

To expedite and clarify the progression of IIPs and ICCPs through the various council levels, this proposal suggests introducing a "sponsor" role for each proposal. The sponsor would have the authority to ensure that the original intent of the proposal is maintained throughout the deliberation process. Having a sponsor allows councils to edit the proposal as it makes its way through the levels. This proposal also states a clarified proposal flow process. The proposal aims to make the process more clear, allow amending throughout the process, and maintain the integrity of the original objectives.

Abstract

This ICCP proposes a "sponsor" system within the governance structure. Sponsors, often the proposal authors, maintain the proposal's original intent throughout council discussions and amendments. They retain veto rights over the submitted versions following Specialized council review if the proposal deviates significantly from its original intention. This proposal also establishes clear timelines for each step and introduces a mechanism for the Community Sub-Council to select the Specialized Sub-Council for each proposal.

[sand beacon]

This should also be changed to "Revisions Needed".

[sand beacon]

@pastel matrix this 👆 is still not changed in the new ICCP that is in voting for Strategy Sub-Council

[pastel matrix]

Yeah thanks, Need jeremy to do it... Haha I can't edit his post

[sand beacon]

If I’m correct - the strategy vote link in the first post is not correct and leads to ICCP-9 on IMC.

Also, once again I need to voice my opinion how this should be changed somehow:

Stage 1: Reaching the 25 upvotes before the 14 days will activate the 3 day vote window on snapshot for Stage 2.

What happens when there is 25 upvotes and 50 downvotes?? Or is just 25 upvotes really enough??

[ivory pollen]

I don't have permission to change the post but here is the correct link for strategies vote:

@pastel matrix I tried posting the right link but got botted, help a girl out? 😄

In my opinion, that is where the community sub-council really comes into play. Many of us have pledged to vote mainly with the community in mind. If it had twice as many downvotes as upvotes I would expect the community sub-council to mostly vote no or request revisions rather than outright approving it.

[pastel matrix]

Yeah we good will be posting to IMC today

[sand beacon]

wording was never fixed even in IMC proposal, i guess wording doesn't matter in our proposals?

[pastel matrix]

My bad missed this, coming back from vacation and such, I think its fine since I add these options manually on Snapshot. An oversight still but I cant change the snapshots once they are loaded and we would have to revote to change the word

[minor phoenix]

[PASSED] ICCP-10 Proposal Process Optimization

[sand beacon]

Who is in charge of making sure this works smoothly?

[pastel matrix]

Councils

[sand beacon]

But can they post proposals on snapshot?

[pastel matrix]

No I do that part

[sand beacon]

Well.....

[sand beacon]

<@&1107754780744487002> @light sonnet ☝️

there was feedback by the community and pending amendments were changed to revision needed. the proposal like that was approved and we are still using pending amendments?

[ivory pollen]

I am not sure what the reason was, but community feedback is not always incorporated into proposals.

[sand beacon]

It was, left image is the screenshot of the proposal that was voted on by the IMC.

[ivory pollen]

I am sorry working from my phone and misunderstood the problem.

So probably just a miscommunication that can be fixed. As far as I am aware I am unable to change things on Snapshot (or any other council members for that matter). @pastel matrix who could I talk to in order to get the verbiage correct on snapshot changed from pending amendments to pending revisions?

[pastel matrix]

We cannot change SnapShots that have already been voted on or are currently being voted on. We would need to conduct new votes to change the 2 words. Other options:

1. From here moving forward we use "Revisions Needed" like it says in the IIP-10
   or
2. We have an ICCP to change the 2 words to whatever you guys wish.
   I asked what verbiage we wanted to use after this was passed for the first vote using it and believe I was told "Pending Amendments" but as @sand beacon has mentioned this is not what was voted on, so it could be my mistake, or the person that told me. Either way we have those two options moving forward

[grave anchor]

The intent seems much more important than the words used, but like Rich mentioned, we can use "Revisions Needed" in the future.

[ivory pollen]

Sounds good my confusion was whether that’s something that has to be configured each time or if it’s like a setting. Appreciate the info

[sand beacon]

For me it’s not about that. It’s about proposals we have voted on.

If we start changing word by word of what was voted on, what’s next, can we change the odds for Illuvitars because the intent is the same etc. Of course not. But why do we have detailed proposals if we aren’t doing what is written in them?

[grave anchor]

I need to note that at the time ICCP-10 passed, we didn't have a system in place for revisions. (ICCP-10 is the proposal that implements the ability for sub-councils to revise).

You're correct that the wording isn't consistent in the proposal, but it does specify two different wordings for what is effectively the same premise. The premise being that the proposal needs revision.

I understand that we need to follow the wording of proposals, and we need to be more diligent to ensure wording is consistent within proposals, but I'm curious why you're concerned about this instance in particular. To put it frankly, this is an absolute nothing burger in the big scheme of governance. The wording could say "Porposel ned werk" and if it's clear that it means the proposal needs revision, that's the important element.

Conflating this would making ad-hoc changes to elements of proposals that are critical to the proposal's function is definitely leaning into slippery slope fallacies.

[sand beacon]

There is probably not a lot of people actually reading proposals on snapshot, but I’m one of them. I noticed the mistake right away of inconsistent wording before it was voted on the CSC, mistake was there all the way up to IMC.

But we can live with the mistake.

The proposal was changed because of this: #1122165628283920465 message

It was done on purpose and it feels weird we aren’t doing that atm.

Maybe I misunderstood what proposals are meant to be. Are they like a “law” or are they just like “idea we should kinda follow”.

I don’t have a problem with mistakes or it being different now. But as I understood we want to be series and do the things the right way and be at the front with Governance… but imo this is not the way to do it.

I couldn’t care less of anything is changed or not. I’m just interested then what are ICCPs and IIPs. And how strictly should they be followed?

I’m not holding a grudge against anyone, I’m genuinely just curious how it works and does it even ever matter of proposal is right and without mistakes.