I wonder who will draw that flow diagram that you refer?
Great idea. A flow diagram/functional diagram would be an ideal first step for the community to define the Discourse workflow and process. A diagrammatic representation of a PIP process.
Setting things on paper also helps with defining an implicit (rough consensus) process so that a set of rules and procedures can be voted on by the ZKP holders. Hence a more transparent, explicit governance process for all DAO participants. I am looking forward to your idea & diagram and also think that MoonRocket made some good suggestions earlier on.
I too look forward to seeing this great idea
Yes, I am putting the cart before the horse!
Let me add something keeping with the topic at hand
Please add any suggestions!
We should split Discourse moderators and Snapshot authors as these should be seperate individuals. Otherwise there are vulnerability risks of the governance process. Next step after the Discourse flow diagram we should discuss the Snapshot flow diagram that comes after the moderator review process.
If we outline a governance process in phases, we can discuss it better before drafting it up and have the entire proposal voted in.
This is good.
We should have 2 forum moderators and discuss panther DAO values and continue diagram discussion after that. Also PIP template, time to share.
And moderators should get small ZKP reward for moderating and reviewing PIP drafts i think
This is a great start of the flow diagram!
The community should indeed think about splitting Discourse moderators and Snapshot authors I would say, for decentralization purposes as suggested above.
Moderators should review the formal PIP(s) and provide an in-depth PIP Analysis Report. The purpose of a PIP Analysis Report is to ensure that all:
- Steps to implement
- Legal considerations
- Third-party review requirements
- Potential conflicts of interests
- Any further implications have been properly considered and identified in order to ensure the DAO members have enough information to make an informed decision.
As @Mikhail12 suggested, the community could discuss a small ZKP reward for reviewing PIP drafts.
To give everyone a better idea, a PIP template consists of the following:
(Title of the proposal)
(List the author of the proposal; can be a real name, TG, Twitter or Discord handle)
(summary of the proposal in 2-3 sentences)
(Provide the motivation for and background info about the proposal and why it is necessary)
(Outline the benefits that implementation of the proposal will bring)
(Provide the tasks that need to be executed to achieve the goal of the PIP and related details, and who will be involved in the implementation of the PIP and their responsibilities)
(Insert key dates and milestones)
(Provide detailed costs of implementation and where the funds will come from)
Voting and Participation:
(Provide the ways in which community members can vote on this PIP - yes/no - and outline the steps that need to be taken for the PIP to get approved, including when PIP will begin, how long voting will be open, and other details)
We can see a similar proposal structure at Apecoin.
I am wondering what PVL’s input on DAO values is longterm. I like idea of having both seperate council on Discourse and Snapshot.
First council reviews PIP and set up report for analysis by PVL. Snapshot council should put proposal to vote like current snapshot authors but after analysis report for community PIPs.
I was listening to an AMA for OccamDAO today - very interesting.
Members ( Stakers ) get an NFT, they can join guild’s who then together propose and launch OIP’s… I need to do more reading they have a very thick document stack and actual dedicated people who run this.
This said I am seeing the need to create 2 seperate ‘locations’ in this forum, a unified space for discussing PIP’s which we can then archive for example once they are completed or rejected - since currently things are very disorganised here…
Indeed we could see this as a service to the DAO Community so that less-knowledgable and less experienced community members can contribute to the DAO where as moderators review and deliver input before proposals move to snapshot. To me it makes sense that PVL team members are also becoming moderator reviewers since without PVL’s feedback drafting up proposals will be hard as we have seen in the past.
I will think about this and expand the flow diagram tomorrow.
Where exactly have you seen this in the past? - From my experience there are certain things which we cannot do without PVL - like update the docs.pantherprotocol.io site with the PIP for snapshots…
I do agree however on the point that we cannot make a PIP from the community side that PVL fundamentally cannot execute. Where do we ‘insert’ that legal/compliance check? - Supposedly right at the end?
Can you merge yours with this one? it has a good flow - yours at the top side and the rest already includes the councel reviews which would include PVL members to ensure it is good to go for a formal PIP?
Thanks, I think the mods should have a more passive position.
Just making sure that anything getting submitted to the council is not going to waste their time. (as they would assemble as a group to evaluate)
The mods can assist in the discussion to help get the community there. They will have the experience to do so. So less knowledgeable members can contribute with a helping hand from the mods.
The mods shouldn’t need members from the PVL. Mods are more of a gatekeeper.
The council should be a combination of PVL, Panther foundation, and the community. Who will discuss the proposal, see if any changes need to occur. If any, they will inform the mods who will echo the request to the community.
If the council is in alignment with the proposal, then it can move into the more formal stages where the snapshot authors would create such. They will also produce a new thread detailing the snapshot
Community > Mods check > Council Review > Authors create
This is good idea, should be mix of community and PVL. Panther community alone can’t review proposals as it lacks tech details and experience. PVL members should not be rewarded for review of course.
Back to something else how do we ensure that people here making comments are even members of the DAO ( aka ZKP holders ) ? - This is where the staking NFT is interesting - I know we all have one but I dont even know how to see it - perhaps Subverted Norms could make an even more interesting NFT for us for this purpose - any ideas?
Thanks, I really like what you are doing here and I am looking forward to the expansion of your flow diagram.
Eventually the flow diagram can be put up to vote once you @Hodlerboi have drafted up the entire Governance flow diagram as @ToXiC_eHC suggested. Once the flow diagram is implemented we could see a more transparent Goverance flow.
We have assesed initiatives like this when we set up the Panther forum last year. Initiatives like POAP and TCP for example. We came to the conclusion that these were not feasible due to technical (integration) reasons on Discourse. Furthermore, we want to facilitate a certain level of privacy on the Panther forum.