[Phase-1] HIP-70 Establish a Minimum Period for Phase 1

HIP: 70
title: Establish a Minimum Period for Phase 1
authors: @arkayana
status: Phase 1
created: 2022-09-20
languages: EN

Simple Summary

Establish if a minimum period is desired for proposals to remain phase 1.

Abstract

In order to avoid simple misunderstandings of intent between the various parties of thought within PoH, a minimum period for an HIP to remain in phase 1 might be established.

Although this is a minor tweak, it will improve relations between individuals and groups, as well as overall confidence in the voting system.

Motivation

A number of HIPs, including HIP-69, recieved recent criticism for being purposefully rushed through phase 1. This includes HIPs made by all opposing ‘sides’ in the protocol. This HIP will establish wether the DAO wishes for there to be a minimum period that a HIP must remain in phase 1 before passing to phase 2.

Specification.

Signalling a poll of the following question followed with the chosen item/s being passed forward for vote and eventual implementation.

Question: What should the minimum period be for proposals to remain in phase 1, if any?

(1) No minimum (no change)
(2) 24 hours
(3) 48 hours
(4) 3 days (72 hours)
(5) 5 days (120 hours)
(6) 7 days (168 hours)

Rationale

This period would allow a sufficient amount of time for uninformed community members to read, assess, disseminate and debate a HIP before passing to phase 2. This will improve the effeciency of phase 2 in turn, as members would come to it already informed and ready to make specification edits, rather than spend phase 2 on gaining awareness and initiating preliminary discussions.

It will also remove the air of suspicion regarding underhanded tactics pertaining to ‘fast-tracking’ proposals from either end of the ‘political spectrum’.


My personal view is that 3 days (72 hours) would be an appropriate minimum, as it would be a sufficient amount of time to pass over a weekend. I cannot think of a valid reason for there to not be a minimum period, although I am happy to hear contrasting opinions.

As this is a relatively minor change, I am also happy to change this from a new HIP to ammending a previous, relevant HIP with a new requirement, if there is an appropriate HIP to ammend.

4 Likes

I really don’t like the idea of proposals being rushed and without further discussions, but I don’t see a real problem with that. If the proposal is weak and it’s rushed, it will no pass phase 2 which is indeed a signalling one. What do you think?

That said, if you the proposal continues, I think that i will vote 48hours

2 Likes

The thing is that, afaik there’s really not a formal place where to post proposals that has been legislated… we all assume it’s here and that’s fine. But this forum per se has never been formally included in the MetaEvidence of the Governor or something like that.

We would need to legislate an official forum for Phase 1 proposal posting. I would agree that this is the one corresponding to the PoH v1.

I feel a little bit too ashamed to say that we have no choice but to approve this measure, because we are out of options with the constant double standards. I said it before, HIP-5 is underspecified and it leads to double interpretations that generate too much grinding in governance and it needs an overhaul.
For the time being, this fix will be okay. 48h is the minimum for phase 1, but I would add that it is recommended that the proposals follow the nature of their debates.

Completely agree. Proposals that are rushed are automatically penalized because people vote against it.

And if HIP-69 passes, it would make it extra hard to pass a proposal without wide consensus.

I would, however, extend phase 2 to 7 days to allow for proper discussion in this phase as well.

2 Likes

I disagree with making phase 2 prone to the same dynamics of phase 3. Should definitely remain a lighter version of the latter.

A 3-5-7 format would be easy to remember and a nice compromise perhaps?

Phase 1 - 3 days minimum
Phase 2 - 5 days minimum
Phase 3 - 7 days minimum

1 Like

To me Phase 1 is just a place to discuss about an idea. Is the Idea is pretty much formed, I dont’t see a reason why it can’t be immediately be taken to Phase 2, for signalling.

Howver, I would favor a % of consensus over acceptance for Phase 2 (not 3) .

SO that signalling actually signals a real consensus. 51 vs 49% doesn’t represent the will of the community, so addding a required minimum % of agreement for a Phase 2 to be valid, sounds lioke a more interesting idea.

3 Likes

I think if we just bypass Phase 1 all the time it almost seems pointless for Phase 1 to be there at all? At the very least, 3 days on Phase 1 allows posters to gauge public sentiment and how urgent it might be. When passed to Phase 2 (which does have a 3 day minimum) that would give 6 days total between P1 & P2 before it could pass to P3. Nearly a week in total is better than 3 days in total, in my opinion.

Definitely agree we could set a consensus % for P2. I think there is room for both this HIP + a seperate one for Phase 2 % consensus. I will write one in the next day or two :slightly_smiling_face:

Moving this to Phase 2. @0xjean.eth agreed to author Snapshot polling on my behalf until I have the rights to do so myself.

1 Like