Changes to the governance process itself, ie the “meta governance”, can be discussed here. To have a grounded basis for deliberation, the following describes the current governance process of Gyroscope.
As a live document this document shall be revised continuously. To inspect previous versions reference the post’s Version History.
Gyroscope Improvement Proposals
A platform to create and discuss Gyroscope Improvement Proposals (GIPs).
Before submitting any proposal make sure you understand the governance design and Gyroscope itself. This document is intended as a live document that is owned, shaped and enforced by the Gyroscope community. This document shall describe the governance process. You can reference the version history for changes.
Process description: Creating a GIP
- Deliberation period
- 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. To get started make a post here or read up on currently active proposals: Rough Consensus - Gyroscope .
- Temperature check
- 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.
- The author of the proposal shall then make a new post here: Temperature Check - Gyroscope. Provide relevant information: The post shall include feedback from establishing Rough Consensus and a link to a voting tool.
- Snapshot.org will be used for this phase that acts as an informal vote. Snapshot is an off-chain voting interface. The Snapshot poll itself should have binary options, with one option labelled as “For” and one option labelled as “Against”. The Snapshot poll must be open for a two day (48h) voting phase. Afterwards, the Snapshot poll will be closed and the proposal can move to the final stage if sufficient support has been indicated.
- Formal vote
- Once the temperature check passed a formal vote starts on the Gyroscope governance UI. A Community Steward will create a post in Formal Vote - Gyroscope to cross-post results from the vote to the forum.
- Reference the official documentation for additional details on voting power sources, quorums, and similar details.
Best practices on drafting Gyroscope Improvement Proposals
- Rough consensus: https://forum.gyro.finance/c/gip/rough-consensus/[post-title]
- Present improvement proposal: frame your proposal as a clear question to the community on forum.gyro.finance. Forum post titles shall follow this naming convention: “Rough Consensus - [Your Improvement Proposal In Question Format]”
- 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 a first 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.
