AIP-366: Rules and Framework for Temperature Checks

Final AIPs Rejected AIPs
21

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@LiveFast9986 has responded to our questions and has provided consent to share them in this forum for the community.

1. Is the Ape Foundation expected to engage in any of the steps of the AIP implementation? If so, please specify the steps and elaborate on how it is expected to work.

I outline in Phases 3-5 aspects in which the Ape Foundation should be engaged in this process (as best as I understand it). Since these phases follow the process of an AIP, it feels necessary the Ape Foundation should have the same engagement as they would for an AIP. If I happen to be mistaken on the Foundation’s involvement in these steps, please correct me.

For instance. In Phase 3, the Analysis and Moderation, a review should be made of each ATC by a project management team (either the same currently handling AIPs) at the behest of the Ape Foundation (based on my understanding of the process set forth in AIP-1). This is to ensure that the draft does not contain any issues, implications, and/or is aligned with the DAO mission and guidelines. For Phase 4 and 5, the Foundation should similar be involved as they are in AIPs at this stage, providing the necessary tagging and review which can result in proceeding to Snapshot or being returned to the author for clarification or reconstructions.

I apologize if this answer is insufficient. I’m making several assumptions based on AIP-1 and the process as I see it in discourse, so it is possible that I am mistaken on certain steps of the process and who is actually involved. I’m happy to be educated and making appropriate changes.

2. You’ve outlined several new categories for ATCs mirroring the AIP process, but seem to have omitted the ATC “Administrative Review.” Is this a deliberate omission? (Note: “Administrative Review” was added to the AIP process in AIP-173.)

Can you please clarify on what you mean by Administrative Review". Phase 5 is an Administrative Review process, and was listed in AIP-1 as Phase 6. While I did not know about AIP-173, it seems to focus specifically on adding a “Administrative Review” discourse category. I did leave out the creation of an ATC Administrative Review category, because it seems to be too burdensome to create a new category for this when the Administrative Review category would be sufficient for this.

3. To be certain, please provide the 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.

4A. The process outlined for the Ape Temperature Check includes similar steps to the existing AIP process, and likewise similar “temperature Checks” have been previously processed by the DAO.
Is it required to establish extra sections on the forum given that the Ape Temperature Check process mirrors the existing AIP procedure, and similar temperature checks have been dealt with by the DAO before?

I am open to bundling Temperature Checks within the AIP process. However, I am unsure if this may lead to confusion, problems with discourse post management, or moderation issue if we can keep them in the same category in discourse. I originally thought that keeping certain aspects separate would help with keeping discourse properly managed and clean, and also be easier for members to search for specific things, hence why I proposed certain aspects being separate.

Please excuse my ignorance as I did not know that a previous temperature check was performed. If you can and are able too, can you please point me to some of these previous temperature checks to see how they were handled?

To me the AIP process has a set definition of being: “a document proposing a new feature, project, activity, goal, piece of information, or change to any proposal that has already been implemented”. Thus an AIP is different from an ATC in that an ATC is not and cannot be proposing any new feature, project, activity, goal, piece of information, or change to any proposal that has already been implemented. An ATC is designed to pose a question to gather information.

4B. Does it seem 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?

I personally think that since AIP has a set definition, and ATC does not fall within the scope of what an AIP is, I believe it would be improper to make ATC a sub-category under it similar to Ecosystem Fund or Brand Decision. However, if this is to help streamline, make moderation of ATC on Discourse easier, more cost effective, or have some other benefit I am completely open to doing this. I do not want to make anyone’s life more difficult through the introduction of this process.

Alternatively, we could change each of the categories to be AIP/ATC (e.g. AIP/ATC Ideas, AIP/ATC Drafts, etc.) and then we can add these subcategories to ATCs (and even possibly have more sub-categories that are relevant/pertinent).

5. Do you provide consent to share these questions and answers with the community in this forum?

I consent.

A DAR package is being worked on and upon completion this AIP will move into Administrative Review. Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

2 Likes
22

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Edits have been made to this Topic, with the author’s permission 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,

-@Facilitators

23

For clarity: This type of Single Choice Voting in which 1 Vote is assigned per Wallet, is referred to in Snapshot as a ticket strategy. Instructions on how to implement it can be found here.

24

Why do a ticket strategy as a temperature check when decisions on which AIP passes is based on the aggregate of APE voted?

How will one vote per wallet give a good guidance of final outcome?

1 Like
25

Because it’s a designed to be the official form of polling and replace all other types of polling services on other websites and platforms, which all use this voting strategy.

Furthermore, this is just “default” voting strategy, and it is not limited to only this type. This is designed to flexible and allow for whatever voting strategy you want, so long as you provide a rationale as to why you want that type of voting data.

26

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

We have no further questions for @LiveFast9986. This AIP is now under Administrative Review.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

27

Hey @LiveFast9986 do you envision this would lead to more AIPs with the new Temp Check process or less AIPs with some traditional proposals going the temp check route and possibly not making it to the traditional Live Voting stage?

2 Likes
28

GM and Happy Holidays @Vulkan

Good question.

I can definitely envision both situations occurring.

There will definitely be more AIPs using the temperature check in order to poll the community to collect better/more accurate data for better AIPs. I also envision less traditional AIPs being made/proceeding to Live Voting without having at least one Temperature Check done or referencing one that has been done previously that polled well within the community.

3 Likes
29

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

After review, this Topic submitted by @LiveFast9986 is ready for vote under AIP-366. The proposal will be posted on Snapshot at the next weekly release date and time, which is every other Thursday at 9PM EST.

The AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be immaterially or materially altered to optimise for security, usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, will be disclosed to the APE holder community.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

30

I think you need to update this. Didn’t we start bi-weekly AIPs now?

2 Likes
31

The message has been updated, thank you.

1 Like
32

This proposal is live for vote on Snapshot. The voting period closes 14 days from now at 9pm EST.

The AIP implementation is administered by the Ape Foundation. Implementation may be immaterially or materially altered to optimize for security, usability, to protect APE holders, and otherwise to effect the intent of the AIP. Any material deviations from an AIP, as initially approved, will be disclosed to the APE holder community.

2 Likes
33

Good to clarify that this is a 100% optional step for Authors.

There are other concerns, which I have raised with your privately regarding what is feasible from a technical perspective and from a personnel time allocation requirement.

1 Like
34

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

The voting has closed for this proposal and it has not been approved.

This Topic will be moved to and remain in the Rejected AIPs subcategory.

-@Facilitators