AIP-357: Streamlined AIP Timing Process


Streamlined AIP Timing Process




This AIP seeks to propose a specific timeline for when an AIP goes from draft to admin review to live voting.

The AIP process outlined in AIP-1 has specifications for the process as well as timelines in some - but not all - steps of the process.

Currently, an AIP idea goes through a mandatory seven (7) day feedback window before it is eligible to go to draft. After the draft phase, it goes into admin review, then goes up to vote as a live AIP.

The primary issue is that the community has no insight as to the period between the admin review and the live phases. This creates a lot of uncertainty and angst in the community as there is no indication as to when an AIP will go live for voting.


Creating a timeline for an AIP going from admin review to live voting will create much-needed transparency and meet the expectations of those who have taken the time to create AIPs.


  1. Mandate a 7-day turnaround for an AIP to go from Draft (phase 2) to Admin Review (phase 6).

  2. Mandate a 7-day turnaround for an AIP to go from Admin Review (phase 6) to Live voting (phase 7) after all discussions with the author have been concluded.

  3. Mandate a 7-day turnaround time for responses from authors who have an AIP in Draft phase. If there is no response or resolution within that time frame, then the AIP is withdrawn.

This proposal should go into effect immediately upon the passing of this AIP.



1 Like

placeholder for future commentary/revisions


ah yeah! I was thinking about that actually when I was writing it, but didn’t quite reconcile in my mind how to approach it just yet. The key issue that breeds uncertainty is the period between admin review to live voting period. Right now, it’s a hit or miss because AIP’s just show up for voting.

The Special Council is currently running at a 31 day turnaround time for sending AIPs to live voting. That timeline has improved from the previous 36 day turnaround timeline.

We currently have a 30 day period during which an AIP idea gets closed if no response from the author in order for it to go to draft. So, I think the best way to solve the issue of unresponsive authors during the admin review process is to give a 7 day response period after which if there’s no response, the AIP gets withdrawn similar to what happens between idea to draft. And the author is welcome to contact the facilitators and resubmit as draft (not an idea) so that it goes back into the admin review queue.

We simply cannot allow unresponsible authors to create a road block in the process even if the Special Council isn’t actually processing them based on a set queue. The key issue here is that we have to send AIPs up to vote in a timely fashion because a 31 day turnaround time is completely unacceptable and just too long.

It makes sense. A long process of responses by the authors and consideration of AIP should not slow down development. But how long can such a correspondence last? Maybe you should also introduce appropriate restrictions

Yeah - hence the 5 day turnaround time. An AIP in admin review shouldn’t take more than 7 days during which to conclude discussions with the author.

This may be difficult to implement. Administrative review (to my knowledge) is unique for each proposal. There are different behind the scene processes and checks, dependent on the proposal type, its objectives, and it’s potential ramifications. Another proposal put into place times requirements for moderators to respond to authors, but I’m not sure administrative review can be done the same way.

There are ways for a proposal to bypass special council review, if certain criteria are met. I’m not sure that is being utilized at this time, as most seem to go through Administrative review, but theres a chance that these things are being worked on. Once we can clearly know the requirements for bypassing special council review, this process can move incredibly fast. I’m glad you brought this forward!


This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@SmartAPE has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.

Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author or by the author’s request.

You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

We have no further questions for @SmartAPE . This AIP is now under Administrative Review.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,


Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

This AIP Idea was tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” and sent to the Special Council. Upon careful review, the proposal has been deemed “Return for Reconstruction”. In doing so, the Special Council cited:

“The DAO already has response time guidelines (see AIP-144). The AIP process requires flexibility to ensure the process is accessible to authors who are unfamiliar with the AIP process, and to effectively respond to AIPs involving complex legal and regulatory considerations. The proposed mandates would create risk for the APE Foundation and are inconsistent with the well-being of the DAO and the Foundation.”

We thank the author for their participation and encourage everyone to continue sharing ideas with the ApeCoin DAO Community.

This Topic will be moved to and remain in the Final AIPs - Returned for Reconstruction category. The author may resubmit their proposal if they wish.


1 Like