I feel there is a hole in our governance proces, that hinders the DAO members to contribute in a meaningfull way to governance. The way we do things now:
- Someone makes a proposal
- They rally votes for the proposal
- With enough votes being rallied the vote passes.
While the format should be:
- Identify a problem / desired future state
- Discuss / brainstorm options
- Make proposal
Also, when formatting options… Something that allways has to be considered are the resources needed to implement a certain vote. So if there is a problem, where solution 1 is the best, but solution 3 is good as well, for 10% of the cost. Solution 3 should at least be considered. As far as i know, Cost hasn’t been adressed in any of the previous proposals.
I think this problem is most clear in the most recent discussion: ( Convert all non-bnUSD Network Fees to BALN )
Alot of the reactions are becoming about liking or not liking the current fee structure, while the main point of discussion is that we cannot maintain the current structure next to our current roadmap.
I feel those steps aren’t skipped right now, but happen behind closed doors. For example:
- Team identifies a problem where the current fee structure doesn’t work anymore
- They Brainstorm options taking resources and alot of other variables into account
- push out the option they think is best as a discussion, to be moved to a vote.
While it is probably the most efficient way for a small team to identify, and find a way to fix any given problem… It makes it very hard for community members to give meaningful input in a later stage.
Proper (democratic) governance is hard, i believe as of now, there’s noone who’s figured it out. But we have to be very carefull with it. While making everything (including brainstorms & thought processes) public might be ineffective and cumbersome. Not doing it enough makes shared governance a farce.
@arch : i know you feel quite strong on this subject as well. Feel free to weigh in