Moving forward, it sounds to me that one of the infrastructure-level things we need to get right is to increase large voter participation earlier in the AIP process. This was mentioned by the gov stewards and it looks apparent if you follow the AIP themselves. Most AIPs seem to have a short discussion period, after which they are forced into a vote which results in rejection without any indication in the discussion phase as to what could have been changed to get more votes.
It seems important to loop in more voters earlier into the AIP process before we go into snapshot voting so that we get a clearer idea of how the vote might go. It would also help adjust the proposal to make it more tenable for more people. I’m curious if anyone has any ideas as to how this can be done. I’ll start with a few:
Integrate Telegram notifications when AIPs get into a new “temperature check” phase. Here voters are informed via TG that there’s an AIP about to head into snapshot and feedback will be requested.
Task a group of 4 selected randomly from within a pool specified to write 2 FOR and 2 AGAINST. Have these summaries attached to the proposal. This should help voters quickly grasp the proposal and understand short term/long term effects and vote accordingly.
Authors can keep an AIP open for discussion and feedback as long as they please.
People often cite greater participation as some kind of grail. I don’t see it that way, nor have I seen a supporting argument for it other than it seems nice.
What are “TG notifications”?
This is a compelling idea! Problem is that most AIP discussion takes place on unofficial channels such as Twitter, Discord, etc., often without one (or both) side(s) properly represented.
If this idea were adopted - possibly its own AIP? - we’d ideally draw from volunteers with relevant domain knowledge or passion rather than at random. What’s in it for them, especially if they have to be the “bad cop” in our little society here where funding and jobs are dispensed via popularity contest votes?
People often cite greater participation as some kind of grail. I don’t see it that way, nor have I seen a supporting argument for it other than it seems nice.
It’s definitely not something that solves all issues but I wonder if it would be beneficial if large voters signalled their preferences earlier. At the minimum it would ensure people don’t waste their time getting something to a vote when it’s doomed to fail, and maybe some feedback could have helped things.
What are “TG notifications”?
My bad - meant telegram notifications. Could even be Discord notifications.
If this idea were adopted - possibly its own AIP? - we’d ideally draw from volunteers with relevant domain knowledge or passion rather than at random. What’s in it for them, especially if they have to be the “bad cop” in our little society here where funding and jobs are dispensed via popularity contest votes?
Yea it would be its own AIP, just wanted to throw ideas around for now. I chose random because I thought it would be more fair, but you’re right - it might actually be better to choose volunteers for each side. And maybe to top it off, after the submission we could post the summary anonymously so there is no personal blowback?
There is another way. We like AIPs that go to snapshot be listed on an automated channel is the Discord. This is very easy to do as Snapshot has a bot already for this. It writes a summary and gives buttons to vote.
Also we can have this Discord channel be a published channel so others can replicate (publish) it within their discord. This way we can get the snapshot out into 100 discords all at once.
Not sure if my idea counts as a different AIP. Anyhow as this isn’t an AIP I am asking for funding we could do this together. At most we get a thankape reward for it later.