AIP-467: Proposal To Revise Special Council & WG Stewards Term Limits

Active Proposals AIP Drafts
1

PROPOSAL NAME

Proposal To Revise Special Council & WG Stewards Term Limits

TEAM DESCRIPTION

@SmartAPE // Derek Smart, DAO member and writer-of-many-words

I am an indie software developer who has been in the games industry as a gamer and game dev for over 40 years. I have designed, developed, and published over a dozen games during my career.

My first game, Battlecruiser 3000AD (aka BC3K), was a ground-breaking game that was ahead of its time. Published by Take Two interactive in 1996, it was one of their portfolio titles when they went public in 1997. So, you could say that I helped the company succeed to where it is today.

Over the decades, I have worked with some of best software developers and publishers around the world, and my works have been featured in various online and print magazines around the world.

You can learn more about me on my professional LinkedIn page.

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION

In order to ensure flexibility and continuity, it is vital that we attract and retain Special Council and Working Group stewards who will have a longer runway with which to perform their roles in their service to the DAO.

In the upcoming 2025 Special Council elections, this proposal will increase the minimum term from 1 to 2 years.

In the upcoming 2025 Special Council elections, this proposal will increase the minimum term from 1 to 2 years.

This proposal will also remove the restriction that prevents a Special Council member or GwG steward from running for office for more than two terms. This allows them to run for as often as they would like to. This provides continuity in leadership positions as well as the retention of familiarity with DAO operations.

ABSTRACT

We currently have a 1 (one) year term, for a maximum of 2 (two) years. This is not only too short a time span, but also, voting drama and shenanigans aside, restricts the flexibility that comes with having key personnel in a familiar role and who have already acclimated themselves to the DAO community, its operations, and its processes.

REF:

ApeCoin Governance Guidance
AIP-1: Proposing the DAO Process
AIP-138: The Special Council Election Process
AIP-350: Shaping Success: Building a Stronger Future with new Special Council Pay
AIP-426: Special Council Future Election Requirement and Role Clarification

AIP-239: Working Group Guidelines & The Governance Working Group Charter:
AIP-347: Enable DAO Wide Voting for Working Group Stewards
AIP-412: Streamingling Working Group Elections: Improved Second Round Voting Strategy

BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM

Extending the term limits not only reduces the drama and distractions that come with the elections process, but it also allows the DAO to attract the quality and caliber of people who otherwise do not find a role that comes with a 1 (one) year term attractive enough for them to take the risk.

STEPS TO IMPLEMENT

  1. In the next (2025) Special Council elections, increase the term from 1 (one) to 2 (two) years
  2. In the next (2025) GwG elections, increase the term from 1 (one) to 2 (two) years
  3. Remove the restriction that prevents a Special Council member or GwG steward from running for office for more than 2 (two) terms. If an individual is dedicated enough to the DAO and thus wants to run for 10 years straight - and the DAO voters allow it, why not let them?

REPORTING EXPECTATIONS

The expectation is that this proposal would be implemented by the DAO’s administrative team.

The community should regularly review the impact of this proposal.

If accepted, the administration and the community should review the impact of the updates after the 3-month period for conflict ends.

OVERALL COST

Total amount requested from the ApeCoin Ecosystem Fund = 0

3 Likes
2

I understand the intent of this, but given the concerns around our current voting mechanics and wallet distribution, I fear there is a risk of this AIP allowing those who may not have the DAOs best interest at heart even more latitude to serve in paid roles without contributing to the DAO.

Suggest we hold on this idea until the concerns around voting are resolved.

4 Likes
4

I understand - and I pondered all of this while drafting this AIP. But the fact is that, it’s a foregone conclusion that the voting system isn’t likely to be revised - any time soon. For one thing, no matter the proposed revision, even if the Special Council itself writes up a voting reform AIP, it’s likely to fail because of whale wallets. So, nothing is gained by putting off AIPs just because we have a restrictive voting system.

Also, as per voting, the DAO can vote in people for any term. So, changing terms from 2 to 10 to infinity isn’t going to change that because it’s just math.

And these AIPs are queued anyway. And so, I would much rather see it through, rather than withdraw it because if it fails, I can always re-submit it if/when a voting reform occurs.

Also, a revised version of my prior voting reform AIP-318 is one of the others that I plan to revisit in the coming days. But I am going to take a different approach.

1 Like
5

Makes sense to increase the term, that’s why I made Web3 WG 12 months, anything shorter is just not productive and a waste of time and money.

3 Likes
7

Hi @SmartAPE ,

The community feedback period for your proposal would be ending in 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

8

Yes - I am ready to proceed! Idea already in AIP draft mode. Standing by.

9

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

10

Hi @SmartAPE ,

Thank you for your ideas [and the ApeCoin DAO community for the insightful discussions].

A moderator will reach out to the author to finalize the AIP Draft using the appropriate template.

  • Once the AIP Draft is confirmed by the author and meets all DAO-approved guidelines, it will receive an AIP ID number and move forward for Draft Analysis Review.
  • @SmartAPE - please see your messages for the next steps.

Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments. In accordance with DAO-approved guidelines, if the author does not respond within 30 days, the proposal will be automatically transferred to the Withdrawn category, and the author can re-submit the idea.

-@Facilitators

1 Like
12

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

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

This proposal has been assigned the AIP ID Number 467.

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

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

1 Like
13

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

Edits have been made to this Topic at 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

1 Like
14

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,

-@Facilitators

1 Like
15

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

After review, this Topic submitted by @SmartAPE has been “Returned for Clarification”. The ApeCoin Special Council waits for answers, and the community will be notified whenever the author responds.

Kind Regards,

-@Facilitators

1 Like
16

In the interest of transparency (as per our guiding principles) here is where we are with this. Perhaps some of you can chime in here and let me know what - if anything - I am missing here.

From Special Council

Your AIP Idea was tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” and sent to the Special Council. Upon careful review, your topic has been deemed “Return for Clarification”.

In doing so the Special Council cited the following reasons:

Some aspects of this AIP are at odds with the mission, values, or overall well-being of the Foundation or DAO. Could you please revise your proposal by removing the introduction of a two-year term limit for the Special Council and Working Group Stewards?

We look forward to hearing from you for clarification regarding the above questions.

My Response:

Thanks. Please pass this along for me as written:

I personally fail to see how such a term increase - which is in the interest of continuity - is against the mission, values or overall well-being of the Foundation or DAO.

And so, I would very much like some clarity as to why a proposal can’t be written to increase or shorten term limits. What is the exact problem that such a term increase would cause? To wit:

  1. Mission: How does increasing term limits go against this mission?
  2. Values: How does increasing term limits go against the values?
  3. Well-Being: How does increasing term limits go against the well-being?

Without clarity, the above are relegated to mere weasel words that lack context, candor and transparency in their application here.

Also, the proposal has three core tenets:

  1. In the next (2025) Special Council elections, increase the term from 1 (one) to 2 (two) years
  2. In the next (2025) GwG elections, increase the term from 1 (one) to 2 (two) years
  3. Remove the restriction that prevents a Special Council member or GwG steward from running for office for more than 2 (two) terms. If an individual is dedicated enough to the DAO and thus wants to run for 10 years straight - and the DAO voters allow it, why not let them?

If I were to remove the term increase, as in item 1-2, that would leave item 3. And then that begs the question: If a proposal can’t increase (let alone reduce) a term, how then can it, as in the case of 3, allow people to serve for more than 2 terms? I ask this because obviously item 3 remains unchallenged.

Better yet, we’ve had AIPs which altered the pay schedules + budgets of the aforementioned parties; but somehow they were OK.

The Special Council serves at the behest of the DAO, and so, decisions like this are up to the DAO community to propose and vote on. Thus far, I have failed to find anything that leads me to believe that increasing term limits is outside the realms of community control.

Similarly, I would like to point out that AIP-1 has a clear definition of “Return for Reconstruction” where the reason for this AIP guidance stems from. And to that end, by my calculations (which I am happy to share), a good 45% of everything in AIP-1 has since been revised, augmented or removed. e.g. we changed Cartan, we revised the salaries, we created other community services besides Discourse etc. etc. And so, I am having difficulty understanding why term limits can’t be revised by the community via vote.

I just need some clarity so that I can better understand the logic here.

1 Like
17

Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,

@SmartAPE has responded to the Clarification questions and they remain in Administrative Review.

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

Kind Regards,
-@Facilitators

1 Like