This proposal looks very sensible to me, at least, as a starting point for a discussion of the Proof of Humanity DAO governance which has really been struggling so far.
In the discussions we had at the time of the launch of PoH, I advocated for a high level of decentralization from the start (even though successful models seem to be more about progressive decentralization).
In my view, that “early decentralization” resulted in key stakeholders (team and projects building applications on top) being underrepresented.
The lack of clarity in decision making rights also seems to result in high inefficiency of the governance process.
I think HIP-49 was a very clear example.
This HIP proposed changes in a highly technical matter. There was a lot of discussion about general ideals (which might or might not be relevant). But it turned out that the submitters didn’t conduct a feasibility analysis nor had a technical expert with some understanding of what the change meant or how to implement it.
This resulted in lots of time wasted in abstract discussions that were not connected to the practical implementation of the proposal.
In traditional politics, before a proposal is put to vote, it goes through a feasibility analysis in different commissions. This is also approximately how the governance system works at DAOs with more experience in community governance (though they are still struggling with it).
Otherwise, when anyone can make proposals and anyone can vote about anything, we end up wasting time of all community members and a general feeling of exhaustion.
I’m not sure what is the right governance structure but I believe it needs to have some combination of token vote and 1p1v, and expert input for highly technical matters.
I also wonder if the Mission Board should have a higher degree of control over the development process. Maybe as a body “filtering” which HIPs have enough quality so to be put to vote on a basis of technical quality and/or relevance? This would probably result in less wasted time in pointless discussions.
I believe the DAO really needs a “Constitution” with some clear governance rules where all the relevant groups are represented.
Nobody really knows what’s the right way to do it. But the current situation is unsustainable.
I think Fede Nanni’s proposal is a good way to start thinking about this.