Element DAO

Title: Proposal Template Improvements Authors: @Bobbay_StableNode Type: Social Proposal Status: Draft Date proposed: August 22nd, 2022 Date ratified: N/A

EGP References:

• DAO (Social) Proposal Template
• Protocol (Executable) Proposal Template

Sentence Summary

This proposal presents a few adjustments to improve the current governance processes within Element DAO.

Paragraph Summary

EGP-10: Proposal Template Improvements aims to provide a few adjustments to the current template and governance processes that are currently in place. The templates can only be adjusted through a social proposal, so we must follow the outlined processes to implement these changes. The other sections provide further insight into how future governance processes will be adjusted and executed.

Motivation

Currently, the present templates need some slight clarifications to make it easier for people to understand the process of presenting a proposal to the community. In standardizing these changes, we will uphold a high standard of proposal writing within the community and ensure that the necessary practices are followed.

Specification

Table of contents.

1. Add Abstain as an option.
2. EGP-# Assignment
3. Community Pod Involvement

Add “Abstain” as an option.

Abstain should be an option in all votes since there could be a conflict of interest and lack of context for voters to decide, amongst other reasons. This proposal suggests that “abstain” is mentioned in the “Next Steps” section.

“Add Abstain as an option.” can be added as a separate bullet point after the first bullet point.

EGP-# Assignment

Currently, EGPs are assigned their number by the proposal’s author, whereas the template does mention “# to be assigned.” To put this into practice, we are currently at EGP-10, whereas we have only had four active proposals on snapshot. With a community pod in place, EGP-# will now be assigned by the community pod.

Initially, when an EGP is in the draft, “#” should be assigned as mentioned in the template. Still, our subtle adjustment would clarify this difference to make the process easier for people to understand. “# to be assigned” will be changed to “# to be assigned by the Community Pod.”

Community Pod Involvement

Contributors within the Community Pod are expected to act as governance facilitators and ensure that these practices are upheld to ensure a tidy governance forum. This means they will ensure that all proposals follow the correct structure and process. As seen below, in between “draft” & “proposed”, the community will provide governance support and assign an EGP number.

[Idea] ➡️ [Draft] ➡️ [Proposed] ➡️ [Review] ➡️ [Off-chain Poll] ➡️ [Accepted/Rejected]

Currently, one GSC member has to approve a proposal to bring it to snapshot. The “Community” pod will now ensure a proposal has followed the correct governance structure and process before moving forward to Snapshot. In practice, a GSC member will still approve a proposal, but prior to that “Community” pod will be expected to support the proposal at the “Draft” stage. The “Community” pod is not meant to filter through any processes but to ensure that the correct structure is used. They will act with no bias.

Next Steps

• Option A [YES]: The proposal will be executed, and adjustments will be made to the social and protocol templates. GSC and “Community” Pod will now have a shared responsibility to approve proposals to SnapShot.
• Option B [NO]: The adjustments will be rejected and will not be implemented.