One of the vital yet easily overlooked aspects of governance is not on action of voting yes/no but the discussion of why members chose to vote so. Although discussions on forums and other channels precede the votes, they may not reflect the official position while voting. As of now, each validator can declare one’s official position on twitter, telegram, etc. but such information is not readily accessible for all community members. Furthermore, it is difficult for the proposer to determine the impact of each stance(of each validator’s staking power) on the votes.
Therefore, I propose that each vote tx should include the reason for the yes/no in the ‘memo’. The collected memos should be provided to the proposer, who would be informed how many of the votes(and staking power) were opposed to which aspect of the proposal. If in case the proposer finds that the reasons behind rejection can be addressed or modified, and by checking the staking power of each reason, he or she would be able to resubmit the amended proposal. Since a voter may agree to most of the suggestions on a proposal but not on the rest, and may vote for the proposal if the latter is modified, the collection of memos would become a vital role in collecting opinions of the governance proposals.
More importantly, If possible, the collected memos should also be provided to the community- such as on a governance dashboard (see previous proposal). The collected memo would be a rudimentary minority report that would serve as an additional channel to share diverse views on a topic. Also, this would become a valuable source of information for the community, as it would allow the delegators to see how their validators stand on each issue and why, and can be used as a reference in selecting validators.