It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that we really need a set of DAO bylaws, particularly around the voting process and proposals, including:
a) how they can be started,
b) the required format,
c) what the requirements are to go to a vote,
d) how votes are posted (Snapshot) and handled,
e) what voting strategies can be used for what questions
The bylaws Alisha drafted for Steward elections seem like an excellent starting point for this; they’re unambiguous and to the point.
Would anyone be interested in taking this one? Perhaps @berrios.eth?
Please note I’m moving this thread to Meta-Governance > DAO-Governance which is the subgroup where this project will be housed for both coordination and funding/resourcing purposes.
You can help me with coordination for the sub-group (i.e., ENS process, while I take the lead on substance). I would like to start getting the group together.
I would strongly recommend among the bylaws that a conflict of interest provision be included. We currently use the following rules in the context of Gitcoin (including a provision for conflicts) and I’d be happy to walk through them in more detail.
Personally, though this may be controversial, I would recommend that some bylaws apply retroactively.
Yes, the conflict of interest is the biggest catalyst for this change and arguably the leading subject of by-laws.
I am not so sure what to say about the retroactive application of by-laws but if there emerges an outstanding conflict when by-laws are ratified, I believe those will have to be rectified. I wouldn’t call them retroactive though.
I think the proposal process definitely needs a clear “go-to-vote” criteria. Uniswap’s minimum votes to propose model seems to work pretty well, I would recommend exploring that.