AIP-366: Rules and Framework for Temperature Checks

Final AIPs Rejected AIPs
1

PROPOSAL NAME:

Rules and Framework for Temperature Checks

PROPOSAL CATEGORY:

Process

TEAM DESCRIPTION:

I am LiveFast9986, the community manager for DAOpunks, voice for Bankless Publishing YouTube Channel, and author of rejected AIP-269.

ABSTRACT:

The following provides a framework and rules for polling the Ape Community, known as Ape Temperature Checks (ATC), for various inquiries.

BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM:

Temperature checks would allow the community, AIP authors, and others, to gather information by polling the community on a topics to get an understanding of how the community feels about an idea. While this can be done on any platform, it would be ideal to perform these temperature checks on the same platform (i.e. SnapShot) as normal voting occurs in order to better reach community members who are currently participate in voting for ApeCoin DAO.

KEY TERMS:

ATC (Ape Temperature Check) - a document proposing a poll to the ApeCoin DAO to ascertain information from members of ApeCoin DAO about said poll

Polling the community refers to allowing each wallet, that meets the minimum requirement for voting, is allowed to select an option as dictated by the ATC.

PLATFORMS & TECHNOLOGIES:

This would use the same platform used for voting on AIPs.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENT & TIMELINE:

In order to put up a temperature check, a similar process to how the AIP process is performed: (see listed phases below). A temperature check proposal will be different from an AIP in that a temperature check is only used to capture and/or inquire information from the community related to the question asked and does not meet the definition of an AIP. It also cannot be used to circumvent the AIP process.

The process for a temperature check will include the introduction of a new category to the forums:
ATC Idea, ATC Draft, Live ATCs, and Finished ATCs.

The voting for an ATC will be single choice voting in which 1 wallet (that meets the minimum requirements for voting) = 1 vote. In the event that the ATC is trying to capture additional information where soething other than single choice voting is applicable, then rank-choice voting, weighted, or something else will be provided/made available to the author so long as a viable reasoning in the ATC is stated.

Below is an outline for the process of how an ATC is handled.

Phase 1: ATC Idea

  • An ATC idea is submitted as a post in discourse and must receive confirmation from moderator that it complies with DAO-approved guidelines before it appears to the community
  • The ATC idea informally gathers information about the substance of the poll
  • Seven days after being posted in the Discourse, the community feedback process for the ATC idea will close

Phase 2: ATC Draft

  • Once the seven-day feedback window has passed and a moderator has closed the Discourse topic, a moderator will provide the ATC author with the appropriate template
  • An ATC proposal must include:
    • A clear and concise inquiry
    • Any relevant documentation to understanding or the background behind the inquiry in order to make an informed decision
    • A complete and/or comprehensive list of voting options for community members to select from
    • An explanation as to why something other than single choice voting is needed in the ATC, should single choice voting not be sufficient for the ATC
  • The author fill will fill out the template based on the original ATC idea, incorporating any feedback providing by the community
  • The moderator may then continue communication with the author to inform them of any incorrect or missing information that needs to be changed—or clarifications that need to be made—in order for the ATC Draft to comply with the DAO-approved guidelines and move to the next step.
  • If the author does not respond to a moderator’s request to change, update, or make clarifications on the ATC Draft within 30 days, the ATC Draft will be automatically rejected as having failed to comply with the DAO-approved guidelines.
  • When the moderator confirms that an ATC Draft complies with the DAO-approved guidelines, they assign a number to the ATC for identification purposes throughout the rest of the process. From this point on, the ATC is referred to as “ATC-#: (Name)”.

Phase 3: ATC Analysis and Moderation

  • The ATC Draft is then reviewed by a project management team engaged by APE Foundation, for potential conflicts of interest, possible implications, etc, in order to ensure the DAO members have enough information to make an informed decision.
  • The results from the project management team is then reviewed by a team of moderators, and will either be approved or not approved based on whether it adheres to the DAO-approved guidelines.
  • Should the results be approved as complying with DAO-approved guidelines, it becomes a pending ATC and moves to Phase 4.
  • Should the results be denied, it is eligible for resubmission unless in cases of violation of law, reasonable suspicion of fraud, or other misleading information.

Phase 4: Post-Moderation Tagging

  • Pending ATCs that have passed ATC Analysis and Moderation will then either be tagged as “Straight to Vote” or “Needs Administrative Review”’ as each term is defined and described in this AIP-1.
  • The “Straight to Vote” tag is given for any pending ATC whose content, and implications are considered to be straightforward and of no risk to the well-being of the DAO. Any Pending ATC that is tagged as “Straight to Vote” will skip to Phase 6.
  • The “Needs Administrative Review” tag is given for any pending ATC whose content, or implications are considered to be complicated or a potential risk to the well-being of the DAO. Any Pending ATC that is tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” must go through Phase 5.

Phase 5: Administrative Review

  • This phase is only for Pending ATCs that have been tagged with “Needs Administrative Review.”
  • When this happens, the Board, serving in an administrative capacity, will determine whether further action is required prior to a Pending ATC proceeding to Phase 6.
  • Pending ATCs that the Board determines do not require additional action will be tagged as “Approved for Voting” and proceed to Phase 6.
  • If the Board decides to return a Pending ATC for further clarification or action, they must provide a clear explanation of why and tag it as either “Return for Reconstruction” or “Return for Clarification.”
  • Reasons to tag as “Return for Reconstruction” or “Return for Clarification” may include but are not limited to:
    • Conflicts with another proposal or another temperature check (tagged as “Return for Clarification”)
    • Temperature check is at odds with the mission/values of the DAO (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)
    • Temperature Check is at odds with the well-being of the DAO (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)
    • Violations of law, or against advice of counsel for APE Foundation (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)
    • Reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information (tagged as “Return for Reconstruction”)

Phase 6: Live ATC

  • ATC Drafts that have passed their respective approval processes will become a Live ATC on Snapshot during the next AIP Release.
  • Moderators are the only ones that can post ATCs to Snapshot because they must ensure that each one has gone through the correct approvals process.
  • Once live on Snapshot, Live ATCs are open to voting until Voting Close, which is when all Live AIPs and ATCs from a given batch close for voting.
  • The voting options are what is listed in the ATC draft.

Below is the proposed ATC Draft Template:

Temperature Check Question

Provide a clear and concise question for which your want to poll the community.

Relevant Information

A brief summary or relevant information necessary to provide context to the question being asked tot he community.

Key Terms and Definitions

Definitions of any terms within the question that are unique to the ATC, new to the APE Community, and/or industry-specific (optional).

Options for the ATC

Provide a full list of options for the community to select from.

Voting System Type (Optional)

The default option is Single Choice Voting (Each voter may select only one choice). If a different voting system type is needed for the question, state which one and provide an explanation as to why this is necessary. Examples of different Voting Systems are Ranked choice voting (each voter may slect and rank any number of choices. Results are calculated by instant-runoff counting method), Weighted Voting (each voter may spread voting power across any number of choices), Approval Voting (Each voter may select any number of choices), etc.

It should be noted that the author is also agreeable to categorize proposals under an “ATC” category as a sub-category of the existing Ape Improvement Process, similar to the “Ecosystem Fund” or “Brand Decision” categories. Ultimately, the APE Foundation reserves ultimate discretion regarding the final implementation of this proposal.

OVERALL COST:

Zero cost, as this is only administrative.

6 Likes
2

What will make the participants vote on the snapshot? After all, this will not significantly affect anything. Now the forum also has the opportunity to cast your vote on the forum, but few people use it. I like the idea though. Such a voting system will allow you to see alternative results, how many users supported or were against. There may be a strong correlation with the results, where the amount of $APE on the whales’ wallet and their preferences play a big role

2 Likes
3

Maybe the inclusion of a reward for voting in ThankApe? Let’s say $1APE for voting on each issue

2 Likes
4

But this can again empty the treasury without a significant contribution :thinking:

5

There is nothing to make participants vote, but the same could be said of voting on AIPs…to a degree.

I wouldn’t say this doesnt affect anything. This is designed to be a useful tool for AIP authors and the general community to be able to ascertain information that would otherwise be hard to determine. By providing a poll option, we may be able to better serve the community and create more refined AIPs with more information.

This temperature check framework is designed to be the defacto polling solution for the community. Yes, we have similar alternatives, but like you said few people use it and there are limitations for those who use. This is designed to be implemented in a way that is already familiar for the community and has the best shot of being utilized.

The voting system, while a departure from what we already has, is intended to be the equivalent of a poll. Where one person casts their opinion and we can see what that data is amongst those we polled against.

Thanks for the feedback.

1 Like
6

I like the idea, but maybe we can pivot the reward to be something else? Possibly Trust levels? We don’t reward voting with APE, so i don’t think we should do so for these.

7

This AIP overall seems like a lot of unnecessary process. Even if adopted we should not pay people to participate in the DAO. Participation is a service to the community, not a side hustle.

2 Likes
8

Yes, but there has to be a certain level of moderation with regards to Temperature checks. Personally, It seems best to make the process consistent with how everyone knows how the AIP process works.

That is very reasonable. Maybe make the reward for participating on Temperature checks the same as the rewards for voting? Or just make it none at all.

1 Like
9

If I’m running an AIP I want feedback from the people who are likely to vote. This is just a practical consideration as part of the ideas process is getting a sense for whether something is likely to pass. Posting in AIP Ideas should provide this feedback, but I do agree that there is a disparity between voters and forum participants.

3 Likes
10

I just want to help provide the community with both another tool to help make AIPs better and also provide an additional mechanism for everyone to gauge sentiment within the community about an idea/topic/question. The latter being the more important part of this AIP, as we don’t have have a genuine way to poll the community.

1 Like
11

Hi @LiveFast9986,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in less than 24 hours.

  • If you’re content with the feedback received, your next steps are to finalize your proposal using the AIP Draft Template.

  • A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft. Upon receipt of the final Draft, we will review and provide instructions on the next steps.

  • Are you ready to proceed to the next phase or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?

We look forward to hearing from you.

-@Facilitators

1 Like
12

I agree with you, in the end the idea is interesting.
It would also be good to have a topic posted right here on the forum addressing the issues and each member would only have the power to vote once.
Only in this way can we measure the temperature of members on a topic covered.

For example: “Do you prefer to interact more on the forum or on discord?”

  • Forum (option 1)
  • Discord (option 2)

“What do you think about a certain topic?”

  • -Good (option 1)
    • Medium (option 2)
  • -Bad (option 3)

It’s interesting, so we can see what everyone is thinking, very cool :grinning:

4 Likes
13

You nailed it. Exactly.

14

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

15

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@LiveFast9986 has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

1 Like
17

I support you in this 100%.

As a delegate with 8Delegate and after talking with numerous authors and delegates, it’s become clear to me there’s a big gap between authors and delegates, and this creates a lotta friction on both sides.

Authors end up without the right input they need, and delegates get flack from the community for their decisions. When in reality, a little temp check and specifically curated feedback from the delegate sent directly to the author, would be a win-win for both sides.

One thing that came up recently as well in discussions with @AllCityBAYC was his cool idea for a style of ‘AIP Alumni Mentorship’, where previously successful AIP authors can advise and guide newer authors to experience a better experience within the AIP process

Simultaneously to this is some work I’ve been doing to build an enhanced user experience than the current https://delegate.apecoin.com site offers

I’m not 100% sure this is the most effective way for gathering the right feedback nor for engaging the right group of most influential voters. There’s a possibility that the specific process you’re proposing could simply add more friction to the existing high-friction processes and slow down AIPs even farther, while missing some of the most important delegate signalling. That being said, I REALLY like your overall thought process and am happy to support it further in any way I can :star_struck: here on Discourse, DMs, in a box, with a fox, or otherwise :mechanical_arm: lol

N e ways, ending my ramble here for now, reply or ping/DM if u wanna continue this convo, maybe together we can all smoothen out the AIP process for everyone in a meaningful way :heart: :mechanical_arm: :sunglasses: :monkey:

4 Likes
18

Well thought out, exactly an interaction thermometer function!

3 Likes
19

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Our team has reviewed and discussed @LiveFast9986’s AIP Draft and have sent a list of initial questions. We await answers.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

1 Like
20

nice proposal! It brings a smart structure to gauge the Ape Community’s vibes. Love the clarity on ATCs (Ape Temperature Checks) and the idea of keeping it all in the same voting playground. The steps are laid out like a well-choreographed dance, ensuring a smooth journey from idea to live ATC. And hey, it’s a zero-cost party – who doesn’t love that? Smart, transparent, and community-focused. Thumbs up! :+1:

1 Like