Sure, that’s reasonable. Updated the Poll template in my post above for simplicity’s sake.
Are there any other items of feedback or objections to the most recent iteration of the framework?
I think it’s important to note that this is an initial bootstrapping effort to help structure conversation around proposals and to provide guidance on how we, as a community, can ensure that quality proposals make it to Snapshot vote. At this point in time we do NOT have a process for what happens when/if a Snapshot vote is successful - this proposal does not attempt to solve that problem.
If the Loot-Talk forums remain a central hub of discussion around community efforts, future LIPs in a post-burn world could represent proposals for how to handle collective “Lootverse” decisions not under control by other DAOs, teams, etc.
The LIP framework can continue to represent the standards that we hold ourselves to as a community when proposing and discussing future directions. I imagine discussions would shift from focusing on how we intend to govern contract related actions to more social aspects (e.g., community curation of derivatives, etc)
I don’t claim to know what direction the community will move in after this LIP-0 vote completes (we’re living in interesting times), but I think we still benefit from a cohesive process for community signaling.
Would it make sense to make votes periodic? Rather than “can start at any time?” For example, all votes start on tuesday end thursday kind of thing?
What we’ve seen across the ecosystem at Tally is that while it’s awesome folks create proposals at any time of day, for voters long term apathy sets in an engagement drops because it’s cognitively too difficult to follow a stream of proposals that can happen at any time.
Maybe in the beginning the engagement is high, but the 24/7 nature burns folks out. At least if there was a “proposal day” that everyone knows about it’s easier for folks to tune in and be engaged. Otherwise it’s easy for some voters to show up only on the date/time they happen to be paying attention and is convenient.
I’d consider lowering the quorum requirement longer term, though, because other projects usually meet their requirements with team, VC or delegate tokens. Right now, LOOT doesn’t have any of these - so it may be hard to mobilize the community
Great work @Hierux. I second the need for clarity and better organization. These are critical improvements moving forward with voting.
Also, I like the edits made that added time to voting so that everyone has an opportunity to vote.
I often bring up aavegotchi as it relates to loot, but this is because imho they have worked through many of the issues that loot is working through now. There are obvious differences between loot and aavegotchi, the primary one is that aavegotchi is very centralized, but there is still much that can be learned from their stumbles and successes.
Alright, seems we lost a bit of momentum after Dom’s LIP-0 proposal to burn the keys. I think it introduced some uncertainty around the need for a community standard for proposals (e.g., will there even be future LIPs, what decisions will we have to even make as a community if the keys are burned?).
However, it’s clear that when the burn vote passes we will be required to make another set of decisions around how to handle the remaining Loot bags, how they should be distributed, who should control them, etc in the near future.
I suggest that we capture this opportunity and move forward with a Snapshot vote on LIP-1 to gather community sentiment for adopting the LIP framework.
As noted by @tracheopteryx above, because this is a special circumstance and we are attempting to establish legitimacy of the community voting process, the Snapshot vote requirements will deviate slightly from those in the proposal to require a higher quorum:
Quorum of 1,555 total votes (~20% of Loot currently in existence)
Majority approval (>51%) for adopting the LIP framework
Vote is open for 4 days, ending September 15th 16:00 GMT
Agreed! Directing the community’s attention toward these votes will be important moving forward. You’re a moderator in Discord, correct? Could you (or fellow mods) help set this up for LIP-1 - it would go a long way toward increasing visibility.
Just a reminder that a high quorum was set for this vote and we still need like 900 yes votes. It’s a boring, procedural vote and not sexy at all – but it’s important, so please do vote!
I really like this proposal, but would like to see 2 things built on it:
Further definition and scoping of what the moderator team is and how it is managed: this LIP places a massive amount of power into the moderators of this forums’ hands and there has not been a process for the current mods to become such to this point, and there isn’t one outlined in the proposal. For the process to be legitimate I think it is really important to ensure that the moderator team is accountable to the community and that who is on that team is decided by the community.
I think we should skew towards consensus-level voting instead of majoritarian. The bar for the community to officially do something I think should be higher than 50%, would like to see it at 75% or 85% with quorum requirements being at least 20%, meaning that decisions are verifiably opt-in/can actually be argued to have the backing of the community rather than just whales or a particularly active subset of holders. For a project whose foundation is simplicity, I’d argue that it’s important for any fundamental changes to the base building blocks to be thoroughly considered and agreed upon by the community.
It looks like we’re on target to pass with quorum. Thanks all for your constructive input and participation throughout the process - I think this is a critical first step toward aligning the Loot community and I’m looking forward to what we can build moving forward.
@seanmc brings up a fair point about the potential concentration of power in a moderation team. In order for the LIP process to work in an orderly and consistent way, we will need assistance from our forum moderators to help curate and move discussions from informal forum posts, to formal proposals, and (in some cases) assist with creating Snapshot votes.
My hope was that the LIP process would be light weight in its initial implementation - simply creating a structure for where proposals should live in the forums and how they advance to snapshot vote. In this model the moderators are facilitators rather than gatekeepers. I think it’s important that we maintain as much of Dom’s original “decentralized-first” ethos as possible.
At this time I am personally hesitant to layer on additional governance structure that defines any sort of official election process for the moderation team. However, if there are strong concerns we should continue to unpack this. This could very well become a seed for another fruitful proposal and community discussion.
This sounds great and didn’t mean to accuse otherwise, just the below part of the LIP was the main centralized bottleneck I was concerned about because it effectively does place moderators as gatekeepers.
Even just stating what the process is if mods disagree, what the process is for someone to become a mod/how many there will be, and transparency on who owns/is admin of the Forum and what permissions they have I think would go a long way to just make sure there is transparency and accountability into how the forum, and ultimately governance process is run.
Because right now I’m entirely unsure of how the current moderators came to be in the role, was it effectively whoever joined the forum first and showed interest?
Being a mod is a thankless role. Generally they are people who are passionate about projects and just want to help. They often put in a ton of time and get very little reward aside from knowing they have helped.
I suggest we trust them to act in the best interest of this community. We have no reason not to. If there are issues in the future where proposals are not being facilitated we can address it then, it’s non-catastrophic.
