Yes
in this post i suggest rounding towards the end, because there maybe cases when ‘m’ is rounded off and then 0.2 x ‘m’ is a fraction.
This is a good suggestion, I would like to replace my statement with this one. Thank you @Trewkat
Good points overall. I agree that there maybe disagreements between folks as you have stated, which is why a Governance Dept monitoring these things is helpful imo
Do you have alternative suggestions?
What do you think about maybe aligning quorum for bDIPs with the quorum for grant proposals, which Grants Committee has the discretion to set each season.
Is there a rationale for maintaining a different quorum for governance proposals than to that of funding proposals? They are equally important to the community.
It wouldn’t be that GC sets the bDIP quorum directly, rather the Constitution could state that the bDIP quorum is the same as the funding quorum in any given season.
I think this could be a simpler and more streamlined approach than putting the onus on every person who initiates a proposal, but it still takes into account seasonal fluctuations in contributor numbers. in the same way that funding decisions will do.
Just an idea though - this is not an easy problem to solve.
While i like the efficiency that delegation brings to this process the question then becomes what is the purpose of the GC? Is it the legislative body of the DAO or is it a body to optimize the grants program? My experience in the GC makes me lean towards the latter.
In this case a formal delegation model outside the GC can be explored. I have previously suggested a council model based system of top ‘x’ delegates having such rights as modifying quorum or emergency access to do on chain TXs etc…
Great proposal! It makes a lot of sense to have to dynamic and automated quorum. That said, I think we may need to change how to calculate the quorum using the data.
The proposal samples include governance, guild role-holder election, etc. Some may have a DAO-wide impact, while others are only related to certain guild/work groups. It may be necessary to calculate the quorum numbers separately so the quorums will be more relevant and meaningful to each type of proposal.
For example, all proposal data are divided into DAO-wide governance and guild/department/project governance, then separately calculate the quorum for each category.
It’s a rough idea, but I hope it makes sense. What do you think?
Thank you for the suggestions @cryptodad
Yeah we can A/B test calculating quorums by categories to see if it makes sense. This maybe more useful at a later stage tho, right now the governance participation across all areas is really low, so the quality of signal we’d generate is rather crude imo
Centralized structures are exclusionary; the issue redefined might be now that we are building centralized structures people are behaving in a centralized way.
Decentralize Decentralize Decentralize. Then people participate.
@Jengajojo, am I correctly seeing that this proposal is from December? That would make it 3 months old! How long is this proposal up before it closes? I believe it is 2 weeks, although I could be wrong. Either way, this is too long
There is no rule that polls should be up for 2 weeks max afaik
We have a minimum of 7 days, but no maximum.
Nouns DAO passed this recently
This bdip changes procedures and therefore qualifies as a Major bDIP. This proposal is also a temp check because it is providing two potential options mentioned in the bdip and no poll for either option. It also does not use the bdip template and suggest textual changes to the constitution itself.
Finally
This is not the accepted definition of update type.
The change remains compatible with the previous version and hence should be considered a minor update
In the last Governance Dept. we have identified a concern with calculating quorum by each author. We see this as a roadblock and hence we suggest the following amendment:
0 voters
I interpreted this as “Do you agree that the Governance Department should calculate quorum at least once per month?” This seems like a reasonable frequency, if the work to confirm the figure is not a burdensome load. I like the idea of having the option for confirming quorum at higher frequency if the situation calls for that (i.e. for mass exodus or a rapid influx of new members).
If people voted no, I’d love to hear the reasoning for why, or what alternative they think?
How is it going to be adjusted?
when i read dynamic forum quorum i extepected adjustments depending on their category, org. unit. type and the amount of ask (combinations?)
The first implementation is a blanket update to replace the current methodology in the constitution. If you are referring to grant proposals, then those quorum thresholds are set by the grants committee
super late to this, but changing quorum monthly seems excessive. Seasonally seems better but I like the direction this is taking
