RFC: Proposal for new Governance Process and Framework

[Rhano]

Hi @annamehr, with the current setup, they would both be a CP-4.

We tried thinking of dividing CP-4 into two, or more, types - but it quickly became a bit tricky. So to keep it simple, we started it out as defining CP-4 as the type of proposals that don’t fit into the other proposal types.

[ImdioR]

Good Anna
I will jump into the discussion and would like to add some info in addition to what Rhano already wrote.
In case this is Centrifuge Devs developing that should be, as Rhano already mentioned, CP-4.
In case this is external development, this case, should be CP-1 (mandate with funding) and after via CP-4.

[empera22r]

thanks it is already on the agenda

[ImdioR]

Good day
Based on feedback provided in this topic and during the governance call I would like to propose making this change :

1. Keep CP acronym
2. Indicate Centrifuge Proposal with a number based on the proposal type.
3. Add an abbreviation

Mandate Request - MR (without funding)
Mandate Request - MRF (with funding)
Request for Funding - RF
Runtime Upgrade - RU
General Improvements- GI
Pool Onboarding Proposal - POP

4. Add index:

We would like to propose two examples:

1. CP-1 (RMF) 1001: Title
   ( First 1 because the proposal is CP-1; CP-2 (RF) 2001: Title)

2. CP-1 (RMF) 001: Title
   (Or just start with 0)

Please comment on and express your opinion and feedback.
@Rhano @omegafattyasses @lucasvo @Tjure07
Thank you.

[Tjure07]

Ciao Ivan. Thanks for taking the comments and feedback into consideration. I like the idea to add the abbrevation of the proposal type to the title. For a running order I would prefer a system like below:

CP-1-001 (RMF): Title
CP-2-001 (RF): Title
CP-3-001 (RU): Title
…

In my opinion it still needs to be discussed, if the already existing proposals should be included in the numbering order or it starts from Zero after the governance process went officially live

[Rhano]

I think this is a good compromise, based on the feedback received for naming the proposals.

Personally, I think option 2 is the best, as option 1 basically repeats the number of the proposal type in front of the index (CP-1 (RMF) 1001).

[Rhano]

This could also be an option. Personally I like that the abbreviation is between the proposal type and the index, CP-1 (RMF) 001. To me, it makes it look more “clean”.

I also think that it would make most sense, if we start indexing after the community has voted on this new framework and process and if the proposal passes. It would also take way too long to look into previously submitted proposals, categorise them, start indexing them, and submitting them to the Proposal Repository and changing the titles of all Forum posts for these proposals.

This would require weeks, if not months, of work and take time away from our other tasks that require our immediate attention (uploading existing material to our documentation, creating founding documents of the DAO etc.), along with our daily tasks (monitoring all Governance processes, assisting with proposals, updating the community with on-going Governance activities, moderating channels etc.).

[OgTheKingOfBashan]

Great job @Rhano

I like the look of this proposal. It all makes sense to make the process clearer and more stream lined.

[Rhano]

Thanks Justin, that is our main goal; to make things more clear. It will be an ongoing process to improve and adjust our Governance process. @ImdioR and I will do our best to bring as much transparency to our Governance as possible.

[ImdioR]

Snapshot vote: Proposal for new Governance Process and Framework

Thank you everyone for contributing to the discussion around this proposal in the RFC here. We have taken the input into consideration and made some changes regarding indexing the proposals and the titles. We decided to use the pull request # from Github to index the proposal types. The other option with indexing them in chronological order (i.e. start from 01 and going up) would be too difficult to manage and keep track of, once we start getting many proposals. We have proposed that governanc…

[ImdioR]

The snapshot vote for the proposal for the new Governance Process and Framework has passed!

This means that from now on we will be using this new process for making proposals on both Centrifuge and Altair.

If you need help with submitting a proposal, you can always reach out to the Governance and Coordination Group (@ImdioR and @Rhano) and they can assist you.

The templates to be used for the different proposal types will be posted here on the Forum shortly - meanwhile you can find them here.

Thank you everyone for voting!

[SYZ]

Instead of using numbers that correspond to concepts/verbal categorizations, would suggest we consider something like

FunRe for funding requests, RunUp for runtime upgrade etc.

[Rhano]

Thanks for the feedback Sam! Your suggestions make it more clear what the proposal is about and we actually looked into some other (longer) abbreviations when defining them.

The reason we went with 2-3 letter abbreviations was to keep the title short - but this is something that can be added very quickly to the process.