gonna flip the tag on this to last-call
@jacobgadikian what do you think of this?
This proposal amends proposal 75, and expands the applicable scope of NoWithVeto to include proposals that have not been discussed on forum.cosmos.network.
Could this be rephrased as something like “This proposal will become one of the Hub’s Rules of Engagement, mentioned in the scope of NoWithVeto in Proposal 75”?
Bc the text of 75 includes:
“A ‘NoWithVeto’ vote indicates a proposal either (1) is deemed to be spam, i.e., irrelevant to Cosmos Hub, (2) disproportionately infringes on minority interests, or (3) violates or encourages violation of the rules of engagement as currently set out by Cosmos Hub governance.”
Note: In this definition we use the term “rules of engagement” to refer to practices adopted by the Cosmos Hub community through governance. These may include decision-making processes and social protocols that have passed governance and thus been accepted as rules.
And I think it would be great to explicitly identify proposals that are going to become ‘rules’ if they pass, rather than continuously amending the precise definition of NWV.
This is better, thank you!
let’s do it! thanks for pushing this forward Jacob!
Totally in favour of this one.
The 3 day timing works quite well (not always) on Osmosis, and would be nice to have it for Cosmos as well. I see the forum is getting more and more used (the ATOM2.0 is a nice catalyst), so this might be the right timing.
A description for NoWithVeto is also good, since it will prevent abuse of it. We have seen attempts to alter the outcome with promised airdrops, which is not the best route imho. So an agreement on how we want to use NoWithVeto (which should not be taken too lightly) is long overdue.
I really do not understand how things like:
mandate use of…
lower the voting deadline to…
slash validators for NOT doing…
create a separate entity to govern another entity…
… can in any way improve governance. I am sorry, but it’s simple history + exp + logic + psychology. There are NO examples in
real life politics where enforcement or a similar tactic would help people want to participate in governance and / or feel / be part of it.
The improvement of decentralized governance, in comparison to the
regularone, IMO, is the reward. The understanding that (apart from a consensus of the majority that have chosen to do something freely - as opposed to democracy, where it’s consensus of majority by design and/or illusion of choice) this introduces rewards to those who take part in it. I’m not talking tokens. I’m saying that people in real life don’t vote, cause they don’t care. The more corrupt the country is, the less people vote, cause voting in local elections, etc, will not change anything. The logic is
why shoudl i do it, if i am not rearded? - and rightly so.
Where is the logic of enforcing the same practices. Trying to outrun time, etc to improve those processes if we know these things do not?
Sorry for the rant, but, this just seems common sense. The worst mistake of any trader, is to do trades, just because they have to. I’m trying to ask
are there other ways of improving a procces, other than enforcing?
There’s a pretty easy enforcement mechanism, which is that voters automatically veto the proposal if the proposal was not given sufficient time for feedback on the forum.
Thanks for the rant @serejandmyself !
Sometimes this is just good to do.
I do agree on your essence of the rant though. The required timing on Commonwealth/Cosmos forum/whereever is only to give people active in governance discussions enough time to see it and contribute.
If our goal is to get more people active in governance discussions we indeed need other routes, where people feel empowered or valued to contribute. Not sure if this should be a financial trigger (not a fan of that), but there have to be ways how we can improve on that field. I don’t know them yet though…
I am in favour of making the forum a mandatory part of Hub governance like it is for other chains. I would prefer a slightly longer period - 5 or 7 days. Secret Network passed an on-chain proposal mandating a 7-day forum discussions prior to submitting a prop on-chain that has worked out pretty well for the community there. Given Hub tends to be slower governance I think it would be better to have more than 3 days.
While I would prefer more than 3 days I would still vote YES to this proposal as it is. I think what matters most is to formalize the forum as a part of the governance process and having it on-chain is better than it being considered simply a social norm.
Given the state of governance and the fact that I feel the community is under attack, I think that it is best to make this change later.
Thanks for your support.