Governance Updates 1–4

[zealous pewter]

The ICC is currently working on a suite of updates and GCCP for governance and would like to share them with the DAO for feedback. We’ll be posting some of these updates in batches to ensure the community has ample time to review and discuss them. If there are any points you disagree with or believe should be reworked, please share your comments.

Once discussions have consensus is reached, we will post the GCCP.
This first batch contains four main points. We especially need your input on Point 4, as it involves multiple potential approaches.

1. Council/Core Contributor Compensation
   Background: During Epoch 9, a council member was hired part-time by Illuvium Labs. As a result, they were required to forfeit their council compensation but were allowed to remain on the council.
   Proposed Solution:
   If a council member is hired by Illuvium Labs, they will be required to resign from the council.

2. Council Hiring Conflicts
   Background: There is a potential risk that Illuvium Labs could hire multiple council members during a pivotal proposal period, replace them with more suitable individuals, and later terminate their employment—leaving the original council members without a role.
   Proposed Solution:
   Council approval will be required for any job offers extended by Illuvium Labs to council members.
   If a council member is hired by Labs and subsequently fired within the same epoch, they will be permitted to resume their position on the council within a two-week period.

3. Proposal Process Improvements
   Background: Several aspects of the proposal process require greater clarity to ensure consistency and efficiency.
   Proposed Solutions:
   ICC Tie Votes: In the event of a tie due to a council member failing to vote within the timeframe, the sponsor may request a one-time 3 day extension for voting.
   Abstentions: If a council member abstains, they must provide a written rationale before the end of the voting period. If the proposal results in an abstention or a second tie vote, it will be considered failed and must return to the community for further discussion and revision.
   GCCP or GIP Votes: Due to limitations in Snapshot functionality, each council will vote independently on their respective Snapshots. Council members will only be allowed to vote "Approve" or "Reject" (as the IMC has the authority to request revisions). Votes will commence at the same time for both ICC & IMC.
   Since super-majority is required to pass these proposals, the supermajority will be based on total cast votes (this will cover abstained votes or missed-votes, although votes should never be missed). If less than 7 votes are collected the bill will be automatically declined
   Revisions: If the IMC requires revisions, they will collaborate with the sponsor to ensure the original intent of the proposal is maintained while addressing the revisions requested by IMC.
   Are there any other proposal-related areas that need further clarification?

4. Council Gameplay Requirements
   Background: The ICC believes it is important for council candidates to demonstrate their gameplay experience or at least disclose the limited/lack of experience. This ensures that nominees have a practical understanding of the ecosystem they are helping govern.
   Proposed Solutions:

Option A: Nominees self-report their Illuvium gameplay experience, including hours played and album collection details.
This would give nominees a simple box to input their hours played. It would show up during nominations but would not affect their nomination submission. The community, however, would be able to judge the experience of the nominee based on this value.
There would also be a box for the nominees to enter leaderboard stats/rankings

Option B: Illuvium Labs collects gameplay data for each nominee of the last year and includes it in their nomination profile.
This would add a section where the DAO inputs the factual blockchain/backend data of the nominee in question.

[pure pier]

Regarding 3. Proposal Process Improvements.

The entire process could be significantly improved. IMO the ICC should not be voting on proposals at all! Instead, they should be the ones creating them. This would give more meaning to the ICC role and streamline the entire proposal process.

Proposal evaluation should be handled by IMC members, not ICC, as most ICC members lack the background, expertise, or game knowledge necessary to properly assess proposals. The same can be said for IMC but that's another topic.

[wet dove]

Should this include proposals drafted by the team? What if the ICC does not have the knowledge to write a proposal? 😛

Take the @radiant salmon proposal that we saw. He mentionrd how the community didnt know how to incorporate something. Does that mean the ICC should mention it to IMC and IMC writes it up?

Or should ICC mention to IMC and then IMC delegates ICC with sufficient information so that ICC can write up a proposal instead?

How do people feel about point 4. Is it necessary to get exact time played through blockchain or epic games at all?

For me I would probably aim for option A, have the nominees give truthful numbers themselves when nominating. If they lie it would come back to bite them anyways.

[pure pier]

lol are you serious? You know what's common sense?

As an ICC you're work should be to facilitate the community members will and to help write the proposals. I don't know what else to tell you.

And if you don't have the knowledge to write a proposal in conjunction with a community member I don't even understand why you would be ICC.

[wet dove]

In this particular case, ICC would not have the means to write a proposal in line with the Illuvium ecosystem without more information or direct cooperation of team and IMC.

So, as we saw with his proposal, it eventually didnt conform with the recommended outline of a proposal. In that case, would it be more appropriate for IMC to write it?

Your message stated that ICC had to write all proposals, but like we saw with that proposal, it sometimes isnt as clear cut as writing anything at all ^^

And like we saw with the team, we did help make yhe process more smoothly when Jay and Rogier posted a proposal. But they had clear insight. The team should be seen as part of the community, represented by Kieran in IMC. So in turn ICC should write proposals for the team as well? Even if they go further in depth and woulf likely be better written by team or IMC instead.

I took your "icc should write all proposals" literally just to test how far you would take it.

[pure pier]

how come ICC would not have the means to write??? You write it with the sponsor's avail... You just format his ideas to suit the IIP format.

I'm not talking about team proposals... I mentioned community members ideas that you help flesh out into proposals. How is that not clear?

if the team asks for your help with the proposal format sure you can help but that's not what I was talking about...

[wet dove]

The team has tokens and can vote on their preferred council representative. So fundamentally the team is part of the voting community.
But i understand that you aren't including the team now. So to sum it up:

ICC writes proposals for the community, rather than having the community write them, except when the team writes it since they have better insights, or when the community comes up with ideas that similarly require team's insights; Like Viper's proposal that was very broad and got the feedback "This is not a proposal at all since it doesn't actually ask the team to do anything".

And then my thought process goes to how to streamline that process. Would IMC be responsible or should the team take it up and should ICC then reach out to the team on a timely basis to check whether the team has drafted a proposal yet? Maybe the other way and proposals that require similar levels of team input should be categorically rejected by ICC, as they encroach on the team's domain of expertise? with a rationale such as: "This is something that the team should preside over. Please wait until the Team comes up with a proposal?"
And then ICC should be in close contact with team to ensure a proposal is drafted? While the team probably has other things to do 😉

[pure pier]

gosh why do you guys always have to make everything so complicated. If the team wants to write a proposal it's them who should contact ICC IF they would like any help writing it up.

And I'll say it one more time, ICC shouldn't be rejecting proposals at all nor approving... Simply facilitating writing them. It should be the IMC to determine if the IIP gets approved or not.

[radiant salmon]

Rare case of me agreeing with filow.

Also, this time played metric is a joke, you can log in and afk, timer runs.

If you want metrics, should do games played/Overworld runs made/money spend/money made on Illuvidex.

Obv all of that is manipulateable as well

[wet dove]

I think there is merit in reopening the functionality of ICC and whether they should vote. Like you mentioned in a previous thread: If a future ICC gets to a point where they refuse to pass any IIP to IMC, that could be scary.

But the process of writing any IIP is vague at best and does require some extra specifications. As a clear example, we tried helping you write your proposal but I cant say that we succeeded. This was largely due to the nature of the IIP itself being especially broad to accomodate the team in any preferred application.

Ill add "remove ICC voting" to the list of meeting topics and for a future governance thread to be discussed more. This could go alongside "should ICC disband and add 1-2 community representatives in the IMC" or other ideas that have a bit more impact.

[sharp imp]

1. Agree.
   ive read gov v2 and gov v3 but i still havent found a clause that explicitly forbid team members to run or being in council. nicholas's situation was a bit confusing.

2. im not sure this is necessary, but it doesnt hurt to have some kind of "non-compete" or "non-soliticitation" agreement between the dao and labs. i dont agree with letting the ex council back tho, people need to own up to their decision. im sure there are other nominees who want the council role more

3. Tie votes: i disagree with giving an extension for missing vote that results in a tie. first, it is the duty of the council member to vote. second, the sponsor can ping the council member to vote.

abstention
i disagree with abstention. voting on proposals is the main duty of the council.

GCCP/GIP votes
i prefer for us to remove the "7 out of 10" and just go with majority votes. council members can just intentionally or unintentionally miss the voting and waste others time and effort.

revisions: yes I agree. council members who voted for revision should be required to work with the sponsor on the revision.
altho i prefer for voting to be binary. imo our revision process can be a loophole where the revised proposal can be hugely different than the proposal that the community upvoted.

4. i agree, i proposed this in epoch 9. back then the simplest way i could think of was play time. I believe council members need some kind of "minimum required knowledge" of illuvium gaming and governance.
   option a is good, we can implement this in the nomination form.
   option b is good too, maybe team can provide this info?

[sharp kestrel]

Council/Core Contributor Compensation
Background: During Epoch 9, a council member was hired part-time by Illuvium Labs. As a result, they were required to forfeit their council compensation but were allowed to remain on the council.
Proposed Solution:
If a council member is hired by Illuvium Labs, they will be required to resign from the council.

I think its good to make it clear that no active labs employee other than the Labs appointed IMC member can sit as a council member. I dont think having 0 compensation to remain on the council is a good exception to be continued moving forward.

Council Hiring Conflicts
Background: There is a potential risk that Illuvium Labs could hire multiple council members during a pivotal proposal period, replace them with more suitable individuals, and later terminate their employment—leaving the original council members without a role.
Proposed Solution:
Council approval will be required for any job offers extended by Illuvium Labs to council members.
If a council member is hired by Labs and subsequently fired within the same epoch, they will be permitted to resume their position on the council within a two-week period.

Hard no. Any council member who applies for a labs position should know full well that theyre giving up a spot. We dont need a "safety net" in case they didnt pass the hiring process.

Proposal Process Improvements
Background: Several aspects of the proposal process require greater clarity to ensure consistency and efficiency.
Proposed Solutions:
ICC Tie Votes: In the event of a tie due to a council member failing to vote within the timeframe, the sponsor may request a one-time 3 day extension for voting.
Abstentions: If a council member abstains, they must provide a written rationale before the end of the voting period. If the proposal results in an abstention or a second tie vote, it will be considered failed and must return to the community for further discussion and revision.
GCCP or GIP Votes: Due to limitations in Snapshot functionality, each council will vote independently on their respective Snapshots. Council members will only be allowed to vote "Approve" or "Reject" (as the IMC has the authority to request revisions). Votes will commence at the same time for both ICC & IMC.
Since super-majority is required to pass these proposals, the supermajority will be based on total cast votes (this will cover abstained votes or missed-votes, although votes should never be missed). If less than 7 votes are collected the bill will be automatically declined
Revisions: If the IMC requires revisions, they will collaborate with the sponsor to ensure the original intent of the proposal is maintained while addressing the revisions requested by IMC.

I dont believe theres a need to carve out exceptions for one-of situations. We want general applications to encompass all situations not off-shoot one ofs. If a vote is a tie and didnt get the 3 approved votes then it failed. Remedy here is to lodge the proposal again if they want to.

On Abstain, I think we can just add another option for abstaining and the rationale be posted in #📯〕council-chambers. On the topic of timeframe of posting rationales, just introduce a specific timeframe like one-week after voting regardless for abstain, reject, revise or approve.