I will put EP4 in the appropriate section.
1 Like
Got it. So what’s the best way to proceed here? Lobby for inclusion of these rules in the by-laws? Wait for by-laws to pass and then push for an amendment?
As I stated above, I will put them in, and they are in.
What we are discussing under “Cool down period” on broad terms is more like Rights of the Suspect and the Accused/Defendant and the presumption of innocence… and no matter what time we agree we will need to set a clear Trigger more like to issue a notice of summons and accusations, to be communicated in all mediums we have. (and can’t be just a forum post for instance)
In the essence you need time space for 1) the community member Accused to justify themselves after being notified 2) and for delegates to make up their minds and re-delegating their votes rights accordingly
It’s quite common practice in justices systems to have a 5 days window for response after acknowledgment of receipt of summons, and 15 to 21 or more if there was no acknowledgment. and you still need time for delegates to get notified/digest/makeup their mind, that being said I assume anything less than 30 days cool down period from triggered by official notification. wouldn’t be sensible
I am proposing two items in the Second Draft: For the DAO to remove a director before their term (item 1) is up, it should be by a 3/5th majority vote (item 2), so as to avoid an unnecessary revolving door. Furthermore, the director’s must retain their right to remove another director by a simple majority without any cool down period, so that they can meet their fiduciary obligations.
I still feel like we are talking at cross-purposes here. How can DAO bylaws prescribe terms for Foundation directors?
The discussions pertaining to the Directors is only to be advisory.
Is there such a thing as an “advisory bylaw”? There’s no fixed terms in the Foundation AOI, so I don’t see how the DAO can even advise them on this.
There can be when one entity does not have power to implement over another entity, but wants such other entity to take into account its position. While there is no fixed terms for directors, it has been discussed and would be a good thing to start to in the future, but rotating terms.
1 Like
We can integrate that into Foundation bylaws if that’s desired, though. I’d rather keep any DAO bylaws focused on DAO operations.
1 Like
I agree with this proposal with some modifications as others have mentioned -
- Cool down period should be 30 days, in my opinion. Maybe 45.
- There should be a mechanism for immediate termination for gross misconduct.
1 Like
Is anyone still planning to take this proposal forward? @bendi? If not, I will press for it with 14-21 day period starting next week.
1 Like
I agree with everything that you said but i think 60 days is very long imo, i would rather vote for 20-30 days period.
Thanks for the bump. I still plan to push it forward, but got bogged down by the mechanics a bit about whether this should be a standalone proposal or incorporated into the by-laws. Since it seems the discussion around the by-laws will take some time, I believe this should move forward as a standalone proposal.
There is disagreement about the length of the cool down period, but general consensus seems to be that 60 is too long. I believe 30 is a fair compromise that I can use in the official proposal.
1 Like
i still think that 30 days is forever in crypto time.
i won’t vote against 30, but i support 14 days as the standard.
3 Likes
I hate to delay the topic any further, but I forget if there a poll on this? It would be a helpful to rule out any dissent before the snapshot vote.
Thirty days is a compromise from your original suggestion, but most people here seem to prefer 14 or 21 days. I’d personally be more comfortable with 21 days.
How long should a cooldown period be?
- 30 Days
- 21 Days
- 14 Days
- Longer than 30 Days
- No Cooldown
0 voters
Additionally, I’d support a clause that gave the DAO a mechanism to emergency over-ride the cool down period. This would become more important the longer the required cool down period is.
Sample Override Clause:
The DAO may initiate a snapshot vote to decide whether or not to override the aforementioned # day cooldown period. An emergency override shall only be initiated during a time-critical scenario that would otherwise cause severe or irreparable harm to the DAO, DAO treasury or members of the DAO without intervention. Voting to override the cool down period shall not be combined with the precipitating issue, or be voted on while the precipitating issue is concurrently active on snapshot.
Edit: Retracting suggested override clause after input was received.
3 Likes
This proposal could go forward with
a) 14 days as cool down period, or
b) a ranked choice vote with 14, 21, 30, 60, None (days) as options, (ratifying the top choice of course)
Option b) makes most sense. Might as well replicate the poll above on Snapshot.
@berrios.eth, do you agree on the override clause’s wording?
No, the clause is ambiguous, as the circumstances and factors that could trigger an override are undefined and by whom.
1 Like
Could you please suggest if you believe the clause is necessary and if yes, how shall one phrase it?
The override clause would end up swallowing the cool-down provision (i.e., people will use it to bypass the cool-down provision when it suits them).
3 Likes