ICCP-X: Vote of No Confidence Changes

[rich jasper]

Summary:

This proposal aims to streamline the Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) process, prioritizing clarity, equal opportunity, and efficiency. By introducing clear actions and guidelines, it ensures a well-organized approach for all stakeholders. The changes empower both the DAO and the council member in question, allowing for an equitable assessment and maintaining the community's integrity.

Rationale:

At its core, this proposal is driven by the fundamental principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability within the Illuvium DAO. The initiation process is structured to be open and accessible, making Discord ID optional to ensure the privacy and security of those with valid concerns. What sets this proposal apart is its commitment to merit-based evaluations. A VoNC is determined by the weight of allegations and evidence rather than the identity of the complainant, ensuring an impartial and objective process.

Sponsor:
ScrubaDubDad

Full Proposal can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O-RNwa9ysHTsrEKeKoNv9TPyyJpyR44RICxdLYq3Wdo/edit?usp=sharing

[mortal rampart]

nice scrub,
2 comments from me

• by my count it will take about 30 days for the whole process? do u think it can be shorten? maybe 5 days for community discussion.
• peer evaluation. this is can be subjective (like or dislike, political), meanwhile the initiator need to provide evidence. maybe the fellow council members can be called to testify for or against the defendant? its pretty hard to evaluate the peer before the scheduled peer evaluation, they havent seen the person perform

[rich jasper]

I think we can cut a week out making 7 days instead of 14. Snapshot voting can be 3 days instead of 7 as well.

Definitely agree that peer eval is currently subjective. Perhaps we can look into fine tuning the metrics and KPIs for peer eval rather? 😄

[feral quiver]

30 days definetly seems too much

[mortal rampart]

sounds good scrub.

yea maybe a simple KPI can be an improvement, i dnt know anything about council works tho

[rich jasper]

Theres no real blueprint for it so anyones take is welcome. What do you think we can do to lessen the subjectivity?

[mortal rampart]

this is a very lengthy discussion.
degree of subjectivity is often acceptable, for a start you can give lower weightings to the qualitative indicators and give guidelines on what each score mean.
i think i saw some quantitative indicators, maybe you can add some more indicators to achieve IMC goals, standard of service like response time, no. of ideas/ proposals, acceptance of proposals, positive reaction, discord activity, community satisfaction etc

kinda hard to without knowing the goals of the epoch

[rich jasper]

Was actually thinking of addressing this by having the elected council do a goal-setting and layout their goals for the epoch so that they can be assessed based on that. However thats good as a group not as an individual. Plus it becomes very granular that might not be applicable to future epochs. We need a metric thats general enough yet qualitative to supplement the subjective KPIs

[mortal rampart]

id love to see that

[lyric galleon]

Some quantitative indicators are already in a public record (votes, rationale, meeting attendance, input on proposals, leading of proposals). It seems easiest to identify quantitative non-performance metrics. That’s really the only one that would have some sort of acceptable degree of variance anyways.

Conduct contrary to DAO, Gross Violation of the Code of Ethics, False or Misrepresentation of Information could possibly be quantified by witnessed incident. However, there’s not going to be a way to list all the possible ways breach any of these last three.

[mortal rampart]

thats great.
what about dissatisfaction of token holders toward the council?

[lyric galleon]

Like having voted to approve disliked, controversial, or proposals that in hindsight were misguided?

i.e. there’s a number of DAO members that would be dissatisfied by proposals that unnecessarily delay or undermine the team’s ability to act.

[rich jasper]

My take on this if there is dissatisfaction in how a council member voted that would be reflected properly in the succeeding elections should the council member run.

Voting against your preference shouldn't be an offense subject of a vonc unless of course it's done maliciously and to the detriment of the dao or the project

[surreal quartz]

agrea that we need the process to be more clear, but still not agrea with things taking so long ... 1 month ... it feels like administration where every single things takes years, so not up for this one, but still agrea some things needs to be done

[trail anvil]

Very much like it.
As others already mentioned, 30 days in total for the whole process seems a bit long.
What actually happens if the council member gets kicked?

• Will the council proceed with 1 member less?
• Will the individual who got 5. most votes in last election get in?
• Fastend short elections for the replacement?
• Is it depending where we are in the epoch? (like at they very start of the epoch or at the very end of the epoch...)

[worn root]

Based around conversations that arose this past epoch, the next person with the most votes from elections will be brought in board. Example from this elections: any IMC members gers VONC'd and removed, Jaganite will join IMC

From what I recall, If near the end of the epoch, IMC might decide to finish the epoch off without bringing the new council member on

Scrubs will for sure know the answer and can confirm 👍

[trail anvil]

cheers
is there a reason why that process isn't implemented in this proposal?
I thought thats gona be an important part of it.

[worn root]

I could have swarn I saw it in Gov V2 or IIP12 (I believe) where it is outlined

Having trouble searching on my phone right now 😔

[trail anvil]

i see, no worries, going to look it up myself 🙂

[rich jasper]

It's in gov v2 already which is why I didn't include it here. But it might be a good practice to have the full process written somewhere that incorporates everything. I would love to see an expanded repository of the process and information on the governance site @hard oar is there a possibility of this to happen after open beta?

Example of this would be simple hyperlinks that outlines the process as they're updates

Vonc process (updated last X date)
Nomination and elections (updates last y date)

And so on

[rich jasper]

This is correct. Gov v2 states that the next in line takes office.

[hard oar]

I doubt the governance section will be ready by open beta, just based on other things being worked on, and imo its probably not a higher priority but I can see where we are at closer to then

[rich jasper]

Yeah no problem I think dao can do an interim solution for this. What site was our whitepaper hosted on back then? We can probably do something similar to that

It's definitely not a priority for sure. And if we made it on a 3rd party site team can just copy paste it afterwards when they have the time to work on the governance site expansion