Proposal Name: Creation of a Conflict Resolution Council
Type of Proposal: Signaling Proposal
Objective: To create a framework that the community can invoke to extend governance proceedings to properly evaluate what is being discussed. This framework would provide a safeguard to ensure access to the full context around a proposal to promote informed voting.
Details:
The Council
The council must have 10 members at all time. Each seat on the council must come from a different area of Archway, divided as such:
- seat 1-2: Validator
- seat 3-4: Dapp builder
- seat 5-6: Community participant
- seat 7-8: Core contributor
- seat 9-10: Member of the Foundation
Let us consider that the most appropriate members would be members that participate in any one capacity only.
To invoke the Council
1 community member must request a draft proposal on the forum be taken to the council within the 7-day requisite period. This request must reach a quorum of 10 likes (which will be taken as “seconding”) on the comment on the forum.
What happens once the council is invoked?
2 members of the council will take on the “conflict”. These 2 members must have no conflict of interest, meaning no vested interest in the passing or failing of this proposal.
These 2 members must schedule an additional governance call to discuss this proposal, with 1 representative for every “side” of the conflict. These representatives must also send their “arguments” to the 2 members of the council in charge of the “conflict”. The council members will then post a summary on the forum discussion in a clear, objective manner on all sides, arguments, and possible outcomes.
Once this governance call is had, and the community has received sufficient, unbiased context on the proposal, it is then considered “cleared” and the proposers can go forth with putting up the proposal in its current form, workshopping the proposal, or withdrawing the proposal, at their discretion. At this point, the “conflict” is considered “resolved”.
Definitions/specifications:
- Conflict of Interest would be defined as a party that directly benefits from the passing/failing of a proposal, ie. you’re a validator and the proposal asks to increase validator rewards. However, indirect benefits, such as suggesting parameter changes that could potentially affect validators if xyz conditions are met, would not be considered conflicts of interest.
Voting Options:
By voting yes, you agree with the proposal and would like to see it passed.
By voting no, you disagree with the proposal and would not like to see it passed in its current state.
By voting abstain, you are recognizing this proposal is irrelevant to you and would not want your vote to be counted in either direction.
By voting no with veto, you fundamentally disagree with the proposal and would not like to see it reworked nor revisited.
Proposer: Valeria Salazar, Phi Labs