#ICCP-XX Process change for “revisions needed” proposals

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

mighty oar
#

This proposal aims to change the process for proposals marked as “revision needed” outlined in ICCP-10 4.) and require any edited proposal at any level to go back to community voting in the governance forum.

Bringing edited proposals back to community voting ensures fairness and legitimacy by giving everyone an equal chance to participate in the decision-making process. This practice upholds the democratic principle that all voices should be heard, especially when changes are made to a proposal. It prevents misuse by ensuring that no manipulative or self-serving alterations can be implemented without community oversight. By requiring community approval for edits, it ensures that changes are transparent and accountable, maintaining the integrity of the democratic process. Additionally, this approach resolves conflicts democratically by allowing the community to address and vote on contentious changes, building a sense of collective responsibility and trust in the governance system.

Sponsor: Dr.Spoon

ICCP-XX:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT9wEqZukfG9jey7FCs0_gAdMNaujS2Iz-7Yx5PV8PXhHD5Pi7wG150hBrOiSGOUEvsPyMN2hBMYOkR/pub

ICCP-10:
https://snapshot.org/#/strategy.ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0xb593595f69d56662f6ccdc4549c1e063cf0f55767734279ab0a7859fb65cae06

small urchin
#

This is a must. As it is it's like a trojan horse to make changes without the community consent.

nimble leaf
#

So my take on this is if it has to go back to community sentiment again then lets just remove the revisions needed altogether. Id rather the newly revised proposal be posted as a new thread in gov ideas for sentiment voting. It doesnt make sense to have the 3rd option anymore.

On the rationale as to why it doesnt go through community sentiment again are as follows:

  1. IMC are representative of the community already as being voted by the community

  2. IMC are privy to information that might not be publicly available such as priviledge information coming from labs on certain topics. Therefore, IMC is in the best situation to make decisions being fully informed.

  3. Its more efficient. Council already know where the community sentiment stands. The revisions being imposed are in alignment with Labs and taking into consideration what can or cant be done as well. If we keep getting community sentiment each time then this just bogs down the process.

  4. In most democractic countries, whenever a bill is going up for revisions, its common that many provisions are being revised by either the house of representatives, senate, or even the bicameral committee. Theres no need for each revision to go through the same process of being vetted by the house or senate after such revisions let alone a referendum.

So my TLDR is: Keep it as is for effeciency and trust in the council or just remove revisions altogether and everything just goes through the process

pure steppe
#

what if the community who upvoted doesnt agree with the revision?

#

and i can challenge point no 1 and no 2

  1. 3 out of 5 IMC were mostly voted by founders, while 1 of 5 is a founder
  2. not sure about being fully informed. i can take the Fuel Parameter iccp as an example. are the IMC fully informed about the cost to craft, cure, drop rates, capture rates, cold wallet not supported yet, time for landowners to build.
    im sorry but grinders prob know more about OW and IZ
#

if we uphold point 1 and 2
we dont need the community upvotes and ICC vote. just let IMC to vote on proposals

nimble leaf
pure steppe
#

ive seen the process of 2 revisions
imc involved greatly in the process and they are the one who voted it in
what are the odds of an ICCP to revise a revision that the imc vetted get an approval

nimble leaf
# pure steppe and i can challenge point no 1 and no 2 1. 3 out of 5 IMC were mostly voted by f...
  1. This seems to be more of a trust issue than a process issue.
  2. If this was the case, why havent I seen numbers given out with proper justifications for it. So far all I see is it needs to be lower. I acknowledge this, there is an issue and it can be addressed multiple ways not just a full on lower the upper rail. What if the production of fuel for landowners was tweaked so that the output is bigger to allow for the supply to catch up with the demand? All Im saying here is we need more inputs from the community on the suggestions rather than sweeping statements like 'grinders prob know more about OW and IZ'.
pure steppe
#

if we cant get this proposal, then like u said, just remove the "revision needed" option

pure steppe
nimble leaf
nimble leaf
pure steppe
#

to be frank, the team violated IIP-39

#

oh sorry spoon off tracked

nimble leaf
#

we can use the IIP thread for the 39 😄 I shared my thoughts there too. But I will say the processes are still a work in progress. It aint perfect.