Changes to the governance process itself, ie the “meta governance”, can be discussed here.
This document provides guidance for the governance process of Gyroscope Testnet Game: Level 3. Over time, this document will be expanded to include more mature governance tooling. This document is thus also intended as a live document that is owned, shaped and enforced by the Gyroscope community.
Overview of voting on Gyroscope Improvement Proposals
- Rough consensus: gov.gyro.finance
gov.gyro.finance is a forum for governance-related discussions. Every proposal should be summarized in a concise, yet comprehensive manner. After reading the proposal, you can contribute to an open and informal discussion to establish a shared understanding and so-called ‘rough consensus’.
Rough consensus aims to ensure that reasonable, strongly held objections about the proposal have been sufficiently addressed. This acts like an informal vote.
- Final proposal: snapshot.org
After the initial discussion phase of at least one day (24h) and the finding of rough consensus, a Community Steward will signal that the proposal may move to the next phase.
Snapshot.org will be used for this phase that acts as a formal vote. Snapshot is an off-chain voting interface. The testnet NFT will grant one vote that can be exercised to express support for the proposal.
Best practices on drafting Gyroscope Improvement Proposals
Rough consensus: gov.gyro.finance/c/ggwp/rough-consensus/[post-title]
- Present change proposal: Provide a concise summary to the community on gov.gyro.finance about a suggested change. Forum post titles shall follow this naming convention: “Rough Consensus on GGWP [counter “i”]- [Your Description Of The Proposal In A Single Sentence]. “i” shall be an iterative counter.
- Provide supporting information: Provide a brief overview of the proposal and provide sufficiently detailed specifications. Links to additionally supporting documents may be provided to further strengthen a proposal.
- Establish “rough consensus”: Ensure that reasonable, strongly-held objections about the proposal have been sufficiently addressed. This acts like an informal vote. The proposal author may reach out to their network to build support for the proposal. The author should be following the debate and willing to address reasonable objections in a neutral, factual manner.
The concept of rough consensus is borrowed from the IETF. Akin to Optimistic Approvals the objective is to maintain a lean governance process that can be expanded upon demand. Community stewards may block a proposal at this stage, if they feel no rough consensus has been reached. Importantly, a strongly held objection must be grounded in arguments. For example, “I don’t like this” will be simply discarded.
If a rough consensus has been reached, the proposal may proceed to the final stage with a formal vote over the proposal.
Final Proposal: snapshot.org
- Propose a Final Proposal: After a discussion phase of at least one day (24h) and the finding of rough consensus, a Community Steward will signal that the proposal may move to the next phase. The author of the proposal shall then make a new post in community.gyrodao.com/final-proposal. Forum post titles shall follow this naming convention: “Final Proposal on GGWP [counter “i”]: [Your Description Of The Proposal In A Single Sentence]. “i” shall be an iterative counter.
- Provide relevant information: The post shall include feedback from establishing Rough Consensus and a link to a Snapshot poll. The Snapshot poll should have binary options, with one option labelled as “Support” and one option labelled as “Reject”.
- Come to decision: The Snapshot poll must be open for a two day (48h) voting phase. Afterwards, the Snapshot poll will be closed and the proposal will be implemented if sufficient support has been indicated.
Moving ahead
If enacted, the Gyroscope Core Development team, FTL Labs, will - initially - take a more active role in developing the governance tooling and process, including, but not limited to the implementation of Optimistic Approvals. Similarly, FTL Labs may guide the community to, amongst other things, agree on and elect dedicated community stewards with adequate compensation. Particularly active community members, Veteran Gyronauts, will be ideally positioned to become community stewards.
With mainnet launch, the governance process will be considered sufficiently bootstrapped and the community must play a crucial role in maintaining and further developing it.
