This proposal propose to have board members put proposals to vote on the snapshot page while providing a protection in case board members or Snapshot were to censor proposals.
Currently anyone can create snapshot polls cluttering the interface and it is likely to dilute the attention of voters. This has already been used multiple times by people to get some “free advertisement” space.
For example we get:
The main snapshot page is reserved for official proposals (following HIP-5 and its possible amendments).
Only board members and their delegate can technically create proposal there.
After being informed of a proposal request, a board member or delegate must verify that it complies with HIP-5 (and its potential amendments), if it does, he puts it to vote without delay. Board members do not have any discretion in whether a proposal is put to vote or not. It is a purely administrative task to avoid spam / invalid proposals from cluttering the interface.
In case a valid proposal were not to be put to vote within a week by any board member or delegate, anyone can create a new snapshot page with a 10 days proposal changing the board composition and the official snapshot page. It should include “Make no change” and “Change the board composition and snapshot page”. It should also be displayed on the forum.
A board member can also post this proposal on the current snapshot page.
If the amount of “Change the board composition and snapshot page” votes on any of the snapshot page exceeds the amount of “Make no change” on both snapshot pages, the proposal changing the board and snapshot page is accepted.
In case no proposal is created by a board member within the voting period of the proposal on the new snapshot page and the amount of “Change the board composition and snapshot page” exceeds the amount of “Make no change”, the proposal changing the board and snapshot page is also accepted.
In case of proposals/votes being censored by snapshot a similar process can be used to change the voting platform to a new platform (in this case the board composition isn’t changed).
A Proof Of Humanity polls snapshot page can be created for non enforcing polling.
It feels this proposal gives an absurd amount of power to the mission board being able to veto what gets voted, and at the same time the threat to remove the mission board for not posting after 7 days feels a bit extreme…
Boards are strategic, not operational.
Are there any references from other DAOs doing this?
If there’s some spam every now and then, simply removing it should be enough.
It doesn’t, board members must put proposals to vote, they don’t have any discretion in that and if they don’t they’ll get replaced. It’s just an administrative task. And note that you just need one person to technically do it.
Also note that until recently, the administrator could remove proposals (actually we still can, but not individual proposals) so this proposal actually gives less power to administrators than currently because:
It mandates then to put proposals to vote without delay.
It gives a fail-safe in case they were to be malicious and censor proposals.
Most DAOs (ex Balancer as they’ve created Snapshot) do not allow anyone to create proposals on their snapshot (whitelist or ask a really large token amount).
HIP-7 explicitely states
This proposal is actually providing safeguards against administrators abusing their technical power.
Good idea. It doesn’t actually add to the board’s power, since a board member can block a proposal anyway. It just makes the application of power more transparent and effective. Since there are a few board members, it should not take too long to get a review. Perhaps we can have a dedicated thread for requesting official polls?
There is no human/political factor. If the board doesn’t put proposals to vote, they get replaced. I updated the text to make that even more clear.
The goal is to avoid non biding and spam proposals. We currently have a spam proposal which will stay for 6 years and I’d expect those to become more frequent. The issue with asking UBI or delegations is that it won’t prevent violating proposals from being displayed.
Well if the board were to censor proposals, I think a revolution would be well deserved and not overkill.
In practice due to the fact that having at least 1 non malicious board member is enough to prevent censorship and that at most board members, if they were all malicious, could delay proposals by a month at the price of being revoked, I would bet that it would never happen in practice (if you don’t think so I’m happy to get a prediction market about that).
I have put forward two polls that Clement asked me to take down due to technical errors, causing some confusion. I find it better, less confusing to the community if all official votes are required to go through a board member. When they are there - then they are official voting proposals. It also clearly separates opinion/support polls from official ones.
@clesaege, I would add that the “Change the board composition”-vote must reference the proposal that has not been put to the vote.
Snapshot moderation is needed. I support this proposal, but also agree with @santisiri that boards should generally not be operational. As this community grows moderating the HIP process could easily be a full time job. So I would see this change as a good solution today. When the time comes we can propose a new role or moving the responsibilities to a new hire (such as a community manager).
The administrator of snapshot already has this technical power. This proposal doesn’t increase anyone power but specifies this power is only technical, not discretionary and provides a failsafe would someone abuse its technical power.
In this case we can allow board members to delegate snapshot moderation (but still hold them ultimately responsible would censorship happen).
Since the last phase 2 failed due to just 2 voters (one of which just started enforcing it anyways by restricting proposal submissions). I believe it is likely to pass now and I’m resubmitting it to phase 2.
Asking for a quorum to make proposals would be good, but we don’t develop snapshot. The current state is now that board members can decide which proposals to put to vote and I don’t think it’s good.
This proposal remove the discretionary power and allows community to take back control in case the board would misbehave.