ICCP-XX Process change for "revision needed" proposals

[pastel mauve]

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

[tender crescent]

Do you have examples of where this was abused? The Sponsor has to sign off stating that the intent is maintained.

[lone ridge]

Is community voting even a requuirement for a proposal to be sent to IMC?? Aren't there ways around community vote? So why even have this?

[eternal forge]

Just copy pasting my thoughts from feedback here

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 every time it's rejected.

[lone ridge]

Last Revision on IIP-58 wasn't even close to what the intent of the first proposal was. It was the whole new IIP that had a similar topic of discussion but not even close to similar intent behind the proposal.

Not putting words in anyones mouth, but Sponsor signed it off because doing something is better than doing nothing. But all we did is made more problems for ourselves now 😄 so yeah...

[pastel mauve]

Do we need to wait until it is abused?
To me it's either send it back to community voting or limit changes that can be done to proposals.
Defining limits for changes is not really feasible, so i went with that approach.

[pastel mauve]

It's requirement to be sent to ICC

[pastel mauve]

In my opinion getting feedback of the imc/labs and knowing IMC would actually like it, but aren't satisfied with one or 2 details is something completely different than just getting a rejected.

Wouldn't you say it is not a good process if at some point you could totally change a proposal?
like in theorey just as a stupid example, you could propose 5% more revenue goes to landholders, alter the proposal on imc stage to decrease the revenue for landholders by 4%.

Imo it is wrong to sacrifice quality for efficiency in a process.

[tender crescent]

I would say the fault then lies on the sponsor for not maintaining the intent. I don't think this is necessary and could result in a more lengthy process. The IMC members are elected for a reason because we have trust in their abilities to make the right decisions and ask for revisions when necessary.

I was actually the one who made this process and thought through the options. I still think this is the best path forward.

[pastel mauve]

so why you implemented community voting?
could have deleted that and it would make the process way more efficient

would be like half the time needed than it is now

[eternal forge]

Yeah but in your proposal any revisions whether one or many needs community sentiment again. You'd want to create a new thread again for that so I don't see much of a difference. Just expand the rationale of IMC as to what they want revised.

My point here is if dao wants a change it makes more sense to just remove the option 'revisions needed' and put the burden on imc with their rationale for any revisions.

[pastel mauve]

that's literally the same but expressed in other words, or do i get you wrong?

[eternal forge]

It's just different process but doing the same thing. The revisions needed was to allow quicker turnaround for proposals but if you're just gonna get community sentiment again having that option lost it's purpose so just remove it altogether