[Phase 1] HIP-56 - Length of stay of the Mission Board Members

Length of stay of the Mission Board Members


title: Length of stay of the Mission Board Members author: Vice H.C. v4len.eth status: fase 1 created: 2022-07-18 conflicts with: HIP-39 languages: EN / ES

Simple Summary / Resumen Simple

Modify the term of office of the elected Mission Board members from (max) 5 year (current period established by HIP-39) to 1 year.

Modificar la duración del tiempo en el cargo de los Miembros de la Junta de Mision de (maximo) 5 años (periodo actual establecido por la HIP-39) a 1 año.

Abstract / Resumen

From the approval of this HIP with a majority of votes in phase 3 on the Snapshot platform, the elected members of the mission board will not be in power for longer than one year (365 days) from the moment of their appointment to office.
The re-election of each member will be possible and it must be held before the end of their term, within the same period.

The next voting will be held when the position of the mayority of Mission boards expire.*

Desde la aprobación de esta HIP con votación de la mayoría en la fase 3 en la plataforma Snapshot el periodo de los miembros de la junta de mission no podrá exceder un año (365 días) desde el momento de su nombramiento en el cargo.
Sera posible la reelección de cada miembro, las elecciones para la renovación de la junta deberán realizarse antes de que finalicen su gestión.
debe ser dentro del mismo periodo.

La siguiente votación, deberá llevarse a cabo, en el momento en el que vence el periodo de la mayoría de los Mission Board.*

Motivation / Motivación

La reglamentación actual sobre la duración de la estadía en la junta de misión no es precisa y estipula que “un miembro puede permanecer en su cargo de 1 a 5 años”, siendo 5 años una eternidad en el ecosistema web.

The current rules about the length of the position of the Mission Boards is not clear, and claims that “a member can keep in the charge between 1 and 5 years”, five years being a complete eternity on the web ecosystem.

Necesitamos definir y dejar en claro el tiempo de estadía de los miembros para someter a juicio el poder y labor de los mismos, adoptando una practica habitual de elección de autoridades en la DAO.

We need to define and clarify the time the members can stay in the position to be able to judge their power and their work, adopting a habitual practice in the election of autorhities in the DAO.

Specification / Especificación

El tiempo del cargo de Mission board, pasara a ser de 1 año por periodo. Y se llamara nuevamente a votación en el momento que venza el puesto de la mayoría de miembros. Votando así a 5 miembros nuevamente.
De esta forma, logramos que las siguientes votaciones, sean todas en el mismo momento.

The time of the position of Mission boards will be 1 year per period. The very next election will be held when the position of the mayority of members expire, voting 5 members again. In this way, future elections will all take place in the same moment.


Apoyo este cambio!
I support this change!


i definitely support this approach but i would argue a slightly longer period of 1 to 2… 3? years of maximum stay maybe.

one year feels short and constantly having elections might be tiresome to the dao. keep in mind we already have a lot of voted decisions!

also a clear resignation mechanism should be put in place for mission board members that want to leave.

and if mb members disappear, also a mechanism should be considered to immediately request their appearance or they will be removed from the role.


Agree, but i’d go for two years or a year and a half rather than just one year.

1 Like

I would vote “yes” on 2 years, I’m on the fence on 1 year. It’s tiresome.

Note that the DAO can create new roles, and that during this period it’s very likely we’ll do that. So not only we’ll be voting for MBs, but also for other positions.


Para mi 2 años seria ideal… 3 años me pqrece aceptable…. 1 año me parece poco tiempo y nos llevaria a estar en elecciones mas seguido sabiendo el desgaste q ello conlleva

1 Like

Looks like a good time span. For formatting and clarity, I would separate the spanish and the english versions instead of alternating them.


me parece bien! lo tendremos en cuenta

okey. we can add this topics on pahse2.

Apoyo 2 años, comparto que votar MB cada un año es desgastante.
3 años me parece micho tiempo.

1 Like

Perhaps we could make the phase-2 vote with all lengths with approval voting (so people can pick their preferred lenght). Then phase-3 voting with a fixed length.


Pensando sobre esto, se ha discutido la posibilidad de que las renovaciones de los asientos en la MB sean de a mitades? En el caso de que en la proxima elección todos los MB deseen renovar, habrá poco margen de tiempo para trabajar pues todos los MB estarán muy ocupados haciendo campaña.

Renovar de a mitades permitiría que una porción de los MB puedan concentrarse en tareas de la DAO en vez de estar ocupados en campaña.

EN - tldr: make renewal of MB seats by half so when in campaign times a portion of the MB can be dedicated to DAO things rather than campaigning.

whats happend if the votation end whit this results?:
yes, acept changes. 1 year: 25%
yes, acept changes. 2 years: 30%
yes, acept changes. 3 years: 5%
make no changes: 40%

maybe we can make a poll here, here its sybil resistent, and when finaliced the poll, we just pic the option more voted. And whithout a “make no changes” option.

by the way, today at 15pm, we fowarded a poll on telegram. the option more voted at this time, its 1 year. image

For me, one year is the best option at the moment. We voted for MB 2 months ago. Recently, an MB resigned from his position. And another is “lost in battle.”

Nothing prevents the period from extending later. But due to recent episodes, I think the most sensible thing is to vote for 1 year of office.
I don’t think this will “exhaust” voters. There is a difference of 1 year, enough not to run out. 1 month is not proposed.

In addition, later on, humans will get to know the MB better over time, and will be able to vote more easily, judging their previous period.

Estoy de acuerdo con esto, una fase 2 con approval vote con 5 opciones y que pasen las primeras 2 opciones a fase 3

  • 1 año
  • 2 años
  • 3 años
  • 4 años
  • 5 años

I agree with this, a phase 2 with an approval vote with 5 options and that the first 2 options go to phase 3

  • 1 year
  • 2 years
  • 3 years
  • 4 years
  • 5 years

Notice that the average time counting all votes is 1.84 years, which is closer to 2 years than 1 year.

1 Like

The average time being closer to 2 is to be expected, that’s a convenient metric to select lengths that are options in the middle. Median has the same issue. I think selecting the mode (1 year) is the most fair option.

1 Like

If we can all agree 4/5 yrs is exaggerated,
Then we might delete those options and add 18 months

1 Like

I think the median is a fairer choice than the mode. It is safe to assume that people who voted for 3-5 years will prefer 2 years over 1 year.
But anyway, there is good reason to update the poll with the favorite answers.