Informational Non-Constitutional AIP
To optimize time and organization, we propose that all Snapshot voting, that is, Phase 1 (as displayed on our diagram on the details of the proposal below), start on Monday of each week.
This will be organized as follows:
On April 2nd, the Arbitrum governance presented its first proposal for discussion. Since then, the forum has received about 39 proposals covering a variety of topics and motivations. Although most of these discussions have been managed in an orderly manner, an increase in the volume of daily proposals could lead to the disorganization of the DAO and an overload of work for the voters.
The order and predictability of the dates aim to make the DAO more efficient without losing its dynamism.
We consider it necessary to establish the basic infrastructure for the DAO. Therefore, we propose an improvement in the scheduling of proposals. As time goes on, we are likely to see more and more proposals being published; this growth in proposals is fundamental for Arbitrum's success, so we must be organized so that the flow of voting and proposal is as clear and simple as possible.
Currently, the procedure to bring an AIP to a vote is as follows:
A proposal can be sent to Snapshot (by an address with a weighted vote of 0.01%) randomly any day of the week.
We propose that proposals only be sent to Snapshot every Monday so that the votes start at the beginning of the week. The votes for 1 month would look something like this:
We also have to emphasize that given the nature of onchain governance, this proposal isn’t necessarily binding to delegates - since delegates can still push proposals at any moment, so it simply serves as a recommendation for better organizational practices and forum guidelines, making Arbitrum’s governance more predictable for both contributors and voters.
This proposal, if accepted, can be implemented the first Monday after it has been approved since it doesn't really require any technical implementations or funding.
This AIP does not require funds.
Informational Non-Constitutional AIP
To optimize time and organization, we propose that all Snapshot voting, that is, Phase 1 (as displayed on our diagram on the details of the proposal below), start on Monday of each week.
This will be organized as follows:
On April 2nd, the Arbitrum governance presented its first proposal for discussion. Since then, the forum has received about 39 proposals covering a variety of topics and motivations. Although most of these discussions have been managed in an orderly manner, an increase in the volume of daily proposals could lead to the disorganization of the DAO and an overload of work for the voters.
The order and predictability of the dates aim to make the DAO more efficient without losing its dynamism.
We consider it necessary to establish the basic infrastructure for the DAO. Therefore, we propose an improvement in the scheduling of proposals. As time goes on, we are likely to see more and more proposals being published; this growth in proposals is fundamental for Arbitrum's success, so we must be organized so that the flow of voting and proposal is as clear and simple as possible.
Currently, the procedure to bring an AIP to a vote is as follows:
A proposal can be sent to Snapshot (by an address with a weighted vote of 0.01%) randomly any day of the week.
We propose that proposals only be sent to Snapshot every Monday so that the votes start at the beginning of the week. The votes for 1 month would look something like this:
We also have to emphasize that given the nature of onchain governance, this proposal isn’t necessarily binding to delegates - since delegates can still push proposals at any moment, so it simply serves as a recommendation for better organizational practices and forum guidelines, making Arbitrum’s governance more predictable for both contributors and voters.
This proposal, if accepted, can be implemented the first Monday after it has been approved since it doesn't really require any technical implementations or funding.
This AIP does not require funds.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-time-management-in-arbitrum-s-governance/15941/8?u=itublockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-time-management-in-arbitrum-s-governance/15941/7?u=krst
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-time-management-in-arbitrum-s-governance/15941/8?u=itublockchain
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/proposal-time-management-in-arbitrum-s-governance/15941/7?u=krst
We support this initiative as we believe it will make it easier for delegates to keep track of votes and help to boost voter turnout.
completely agree, cause it much easy to follow votes
Regularization of governance activities lowers friction on the system as a whole.
We support this initiative as we believe it will make it easier for delegates to keep track of votes and help to boost voter turnout.
completely agree, cause it much easy to follow votes
Regularization of governance activities lowers friction on the system as a whole.
At this stage, we are open to feedback and suggestions. One option could be to start the votes twice a month, such as the first Monday of the first and third week of the month.
At this stage, we are open to feedback and suggestions. One option could be to start the votes twice a month, such as the first Monday of the first and third week of the month.
Yeah, I get the message. Thank you for your detailed response. I will think, like other DAO members, I hope.
Starting the work week on Monday is logical, but don't you think the point of decentralization is to have multiple approaches to unification? I mean, yes, decentralization does not eliminate unification, but is it necessary to regulate the process of proposals and their consideration so rigidly? These questions are not tricky, I just want to understand the motivation, because so far I have seen only one explanation: it will simplify the work of the DAO. Yes, but at the same time it will make the work of the DAO less "alive".
good order of voting - Yes
At this stage, we are open to feedback and suggestions. One option could be to start the votes twice a month, such as the first Monday of the first and third week of the month.
At this stage, we are open to feedback and suggestions. One option could be to start the votes twice a month, such as the first Monday of the first and third week of the month.
Yeah, I get the message. Thank you for your detailed response. I will think, like other DAO members, I hope.
Starting the work week on Monday is logical, but don't you think the point of decentralization is to have multiple approaches to unification? I mean, yes, decentralization does not eliminate unification, but is it necessary to regulate the process of proposals and their consideration so rigidly? These questions are not tricky, I just want to understand the motivation, because so far I have seen only one explanation: it will simplify the work of the DAO. Yes, but at the same time it will make the work of the DAO less "alive".
good order of voting - Yes
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the temperature check, with a suggestion that it can be still improved before being put for an onchain vote.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the temperature check, with a suggestion that it can be still improved before being put for an onchain vote.
Establishing a cadence in which proposals are pushed to a vote can help streamline the process both for proposers and delegates so we’ll support this proposal. We do want to bring up some things to consider though:
We’d also like to take the opportunity and suggest that the process is somehow connected to the monthly Open Governance Call. It’d be a great opportunity for proposers to pitch their proposals, and for delegates to collectively review and discuss them.
Just to be clear...
- Proposals should be sent to Snapshots every Monday from 00:00 until 23:59.
Is there an assumed canonical timezone, or are we talking in UTC, or are we following a variable timezone based on where the proposer is located?
Hi @menaskop!
Our goal is not to diminish the dynamism of the DAO, but to establish a calendar with specific dates for voting. With this approach, we aim to offer delegates predictability, allowing them to organize their time more efficiently and ensure their commitment during the Arbitrum DAO votes. To illustrate my point, let's review how the latest votes were conducted:
Yea, sorry - I should've been more specific about that, but given that UTC is a neutral timezone, I think we should go with that unless the DAO thinks we should use another timezone.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the temperature check, with a suggestion that it can be still improved before being put for an onchain vote.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the temperature check, with a suggestion that it can be still improved before being put for an onchain vote.
Establishing a cadence in which proposals are pushed to a vote can help streamline the process both for proposers and delegates so we’ll support this proposal. We do want to bring up some things to consider though:
We’d also like to take the opportunity and suggest that the process is somehow connected to the monthly Open Governance Call. It’d be a great opportunity for proposers to pitch their proposals, and for delegates to collectively review and discuss them.
Just to be clear...
- Proposals should be sent to Snapshots every Monday from 00:00 until 23:59.
Is there an assumed canonical timezone, or are we talking in UTC, or are we following a variable timezone based on where the proposer is located?
Hi @menaskop!
Our goal is not to diminish the dynamism of the DAO, but to establish a calendar with specific dates for voting. With this approach, we aim to offer delegates predictability, allowing them to organize their time more efficiently and ensure their commitment during the Arbitrum DAO votes. To illustrate my point, let's review how the latest votes were conducted:
Yea, sorry - I should've been more specific about that, but given that UTC is a neutral timezone, I think we should go with that unless the DAO thinks we should use another timezone.
Hi @menaskop!
Our goal is not to diminish the dynamism of the DAO, but to establish a calendar with specific dates for voting. With this approach, we aim to offer delegates predictability, allowing them to organize their time more efficiently and ensure their commitment during the Arbitrum DAO votes. To illustrate my point, let's review how the latest votes were conducted:
Although currently, the votes are held consecutively, as the number of proposals increases, it's likely that the start dates for snapshot votes become more unpredictable, and the same could happen with the tally.
At this stage, we are open to feedback and suggestions. One option could be to start the votes twice a month, such as the first Monday of the first and third week of the month.
The proposal is now live on snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x5c0cecde14ec0b83c954b47c2d79348ce249019b83894f3938fc80b45e1232da
Hi @krst, thanks for your feedback and support.
We have a few points we want to highlight:
Hi @krst, thanks for your feedback and support.
We have a few points we want to highlight:
The DAO is still picking up the pace when it comes to active contributors and proposals, so the described procedure might soon prove itself too long or too short. We should keep track of any challenges that arise and reassess the cadence if needed.
Yes, we know this from the beginning, but the idea of this one is to establish an order and then iterate. As we have expressed before, set up these processes to have a first order and then change according to the needs of the DAO.
In this we are in 100% agreement, however we decided to go ahead with the proposal and we believe in the good predisposition of the DAO members. Also, that is why we had proposed the role of the Facilitator, to help manage these times.
We had many doubts at the beginning, whether to propose this or not, but we believe that order is necessary and predictability helps to make the job of being a delegate easier.
We’d also like to take the opportunity and suggest that the process is somehow connected to the monthly Open Governance Call. It’d be a great opportunity for proposers to pitch their proposals, and for delegates to collectively review and discuss them.
This is the idea behind the proposal, that the rest of the activities adapt and everything has an order. We attend all the Open Governance Calls, we think it is a great space.
A clear example of this is the sessions that he proposed for the postulation of the domain allocator.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-grants-domain-allocator-nominations/15759/43
I don't know if this was pre-established, but it is a very good idea for the delegates to have a space to listen to the applicants. Let's keep in mind that we all knew when the proposal was going to be voted on. This predictability helps these things happen organically.
We're voting in favor of scheduling all Snapshot votes to commence on Mondays for several key reasons:
We're voting in favor of scheduling all Snapshot votes to commence on Mondays for several key reasons:
Overall, I am convinced that adopting this schedule will contribute to a more organized, and transparent governance framework, thereby benefiting the Arbitrum community as a whole.
One of the most crucial elements in making wise decisions in governance, in our opinion, is time management. Although the fact that proposals can come at any time allows people to present their ideas without a time limit, it can create problems in terms of time management and examining the ideas presented. With the arrangement outlined in the proposal, the delegates can schedule the proposal review processes, allowing them to more effectively grasp the incoming proposals and give them a thorough inspection before making judgments. Additionally, the voting process can go seamless as the number of proposals rises. As a result, both the community's confidence in Arbitrum governance and its effectiveness can be increased. Considering all these factors, we have decided to vote in favor of this proposal.
Hi @menaskop!
Our goal is not to diminish the dynamism of the DAO, but to establish a calendar with specific dates for voting. With this approach, we aim to offer delegates predictability, allowing them to organize their time more efficiently and ensure their commitment during the Arbitrum DAO votes. To illustrate my point, let's review how the latest votes were conducted:
Although currently, the votes are held consecutively, as the number of proposals increases, it's likely that the start dates for snapshot votes become more unpredictable, and the same could happen with the tally.
At this stage, we are open to feedback and suggestions. One option could be to start the votes twice a month, such as the first Monday of the first and third week of the month.
The proposal is now live on snapshot: https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x5c0cecde14ec0b83c954b47c2d79348ce249019b83894f3938fc80b45e1232da
Hi @krst, thanks for your feedback and support.
We have a few points we want to highlight:
Hi @krst, thanks for your feedback and support.
We have a few points we want to highlight:
The DAO is still picking up the pace when it comes to active contributors and proposals, so the described procedure might soon prove itself too long or too short. We should keep track of any challenges that arise and reassess the cadence if needed.
Yes, we know this from the beginning, but the idea of this one is to establish an order and then iterate. As we have expressed before, set up these processes to have a first order and then change according to the needs of the DAO.
In this we are in 100% agreement, however we decided to go ahead with the proposal and we believe in the good predisposition of the DAO members. Also, that is why we had proposed the role of the Facilitator, to help manage these times.
We had many doubts at the beginning, whether to propose this or not, but we believe that order is necessary and predictability helps to make the job of being a delegate easier.
We’d also like to take the opportunity and suggest that the process is somehow connected to the monthly Open Governance Call. It’d be a great opportunity for proposers to pitch their proposals, and for delegates to collectively review and discuss them.
This is the idea behind the proposal, that the rest of the activities adapt and everything has an order. We attend all the Open Governance Calls, we think it is a great space.
A clear example of this is the sessions that he proposed for the postulation of the domain allocator.
https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-dao-grants-domain-allocator-nominations/15759/43
I don't know if this was pre-established, but it is a very good idea for the delegates to have a space to listen to the applicants. Let's keep in mind that we all knew when the proposal was going to be voted on. This predictability helps these things happen organically.
We're voting in favor of scheduling all Snapshot votes to commence on Mondays for several key reasons:
We're voting in favor of scheduling all Snapshot votes to commence on Mondays for several key reasons:
Overall, I am convinced that adopting this schedule will contribute to a more organized, and transparent governance framework, thereby benefiting the Arbitrum community as a whole.
One of the most crucial elements in making wise decisions in governance, in our opinion, is time management. Although the fact that proposals can come at any time allows people to present their ideas without a time limit, it can create problems in terms of time management and examining the ideas presented. With the arrangement outlined in the proposal, the delegates can schedule the proposal review processes, allowing them to more effectively grasp the incoming proposals and give them a thorough inspection before making judgments. Additionally, the voting process can go seamless as the number of proposals rises. As a result, both the community's confidence in Arbitrum governance and its effectiveness can be increased. Considering all these factors, we have decided to vote in favor of this proposal.
