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.
Provide a clear and concise question for which your want to poll the community.
A brief summary or relevant information necessary to provide context to the question being asked tot he community.
Definitions of any terms within the question that are unique to the ATC, new to the APE Community, and/or industry-specific (optional).
Provide a full list of options for the community to select from.
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?
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.