Title: [GCP-003] - Post-vote “reconsider” process
Author(s): Shawn16400, Gitcoin Steward Council,
Summary:
This proposal creates a mechanism for appealing a decision that has been ratified via the Gitcoin Governance process. This process is intended to be used sparingly and is not designed to be an alternative litigation process for dissatisfied users of the governance process.
Abstract:
This mechanism is designed as a stop-gap measure in cases where there is a material change in information around a vote that could have changed the outcome of a vote had that information been known prior to the vote being cast. A suitable example of a case to reconsider a vote would be if there is new information that, if known prior to the vote, might have changed the outcome of the vote.
To note, this process is designed for situations where any new material information is brought to light, or there is a significant environmental change. In the case of new information being brought to light, it does not pass judgment on if the new information was asymmetrically unavailable (information was withheld, obfuscated, or omitted) or if new information was previously unknown and has recently been discovered.
Motivation:
The web3 space changes rapidly and good governance processes protect against the implementation of bad choices, but it also needs to be flexible enough to rapidly adjust as new information as it is made available. Without a controlled process in place, the DAO is at risk for being forced to implement outdated decisions, move in an uncoordinated fashion, or make inappropriate or unauthorized declarations in order to repeal decisions in a way that might cause the entire governance process to be called into question.
Specifications:
This outlines the order of operations that the DAO might expect to encounter. This process is designed to be light enough to flex with changing circumstances, yet give enough direction to guide a just process in relation to decision makers and decision flow.
A typical case:
-
The case at issue is related to a vote which has recently closed
-
New or previously unknown information is made public in relation to the vote, or there has been a significant change in the environment (ex: drastic change in BTC/GTC price)
-
A call to “reconsider the vote” is raised by a current CSDO member to the Steward Council
- The call to “reconsider the vote” must be brought by a CSDO member who 1) cast a vote in the election in question AND 2) whose vote was aligned with the outcome of the election.
- Example 1: if the vote failed, a member of CSDO who specifically voted against the proposal must raise the question to the Steward Council
- Example 2: If the vote passed, a member of CSDO who specifically voted for the proposal must raise the question to the Steward Council
-
Ideally, the situation is discussed in the next CSDO meeting, but this is not required.
-
The subject is added to the next Steward Council meeting for discussion and decision.
-
The Steward Council support team will invite the appropriate parties to the meeting.
-
After discussing the issue, there can be one of two outcomes from the Steward Council:
-
A. If the Steward Council votes in the affirmative to “reconsider the vote”, then the Steward Council makes the decision known and the original vote is null and void. The proposal can be brought back for a revote by the original proposer following the standard governance process. The proposal may be the same or amended as per the preferences of the proposer. If the proposal is not brought by the original proposer within 7 days, the original vote is considered null and void.
-
B. If the Steward Council does not motion to “reconsider the vote”, or if a motion to “reconsider the vote” fails a majority vote, the original vote stands and must be executed as originally passed.
Benefits:
-
This proposal allows for the coordinated reconsideration of proposal
-
This process establishes a higher bar for reconsideration as to avoid the relitigation by the disaffected voters of the proposal.
-
This process protects the DAO from activist voters who attempt to use the governance process as a method to circumvent the educated will of the voters.
-
This process is not novel. It is a reapplication of Robert’s Rules of Order NR which has been robustly tested in parliamentary procedure.
Drawbacks:
Core to the governance process is belief the process is just and efficient. Continuous reconsidering of proposals opens the process for misuse, abuse and can erode confidence in the governance process. These cases should be carefully considered before raising a motion to reconsider:
-
This process should only be used when new information is made public, or there is a significant environmental change.
-
The process should not be used to relitigate righteous votes
Vote:
YES: Implement the reconsideration process as outlined
NO: Do not implement the reconsideration process as outlined
I don’t know but kind of fascinating as an example of liquid governance.
let the people who are not closest to the situation hear the facts and then make a decision.
