The phase after Admin Review

General
1

For Clarity:

  • What is the phase after the 1 month admin review called?
  • What is the max number of days the AIP sits in that phase?
  • Is the duration to sit in this phase unknown?
  • Who picks which AIP goes to vote from the ones in this phase?
  • If it’s SC, can we get data on which SC picked how many and which during this year?
  • If it’s not picked for 1 month plus, can we get the reasons why?
  • Can we make this phase public so authors know the progress?
  • If SC had 1 month to review the AIP in admin review, what is taking so long? (and no, the answer is not the current AIPs in pipeline)
  • Can we get data on which SC reviewed how many AIPs during admin review?
  • How can we save time on this phase and reduce the number of days?
  • How can we give accountability to this unknown phase?
  • How to make the current SC actions more transparent?
6 Likes
2

00134

3

These are all great questions. I think the answers would fit well in the ApeU course to give new authors some perspective.

From what I learned there, the reason behind not knowing when your AIP will go live is to prevent vote tampering via huge purchases made before it goes live.

I would imagine SC has to go through each of these and get questions answered and process through legal and that’s why it takes a while.

But it will be good to get more clarity on some of these other functions as well.

The unknown phases and timelines must be maddening for authors I would think.

3 Likes
4

Yup - that makes a lot of sense. But it still doesn’t explain why AIPs are sent to vote out of order.

5 Likes
5

We not millionaires that can purchase and outvote the founding wallets.

Even so, that standard should be same for elections, during my run, top voted got 3M in two wallets by friend, which sold afterwards.

Lastly, it does not answer any of the technical and reporting transparency questions I asked.

5 Likes
6

@BoredApeG @Hazel @Airvey @mo_ezz14 @Waabam

Let me see if tagging works here, will try X next.

2 Likes
7

I 100% Agree with all these questions. Need more clarity on this Admin review thing. why do they need 30 business days to review AIP which they already read since they ask few questions based on your AIP. also how are we tracking progress of special council members? all these questions has to be asked and made clear wen more transparency has been brought for grantees, There has to be more transparency on internal system too since some of the members selected for special council and steward didnt show up until we held elections, questions were raised against them but no one answered them.

2 Likes
8

Great questions @buuvei!

The phase after the admin review is Live AIP where it goes to vote. There isn’t a phase in between those and it isn’t necessarily 1 month. There’s not a max number of days that it sits in the admin review phase and duration varies depending on proposal. SC is responsible for the admin review and what goes up to vote. I think how long a proposal spends in this phase depends on diff factors like cost, complexity, whether legal needs to review it, whether changes need to be made, etc.

@Vulkan used to keep track of a lot of stats like the length of time spent and amount of proposals in each phase, but I don’t think it’s being kept up with since he resigned as DAO Secretary.

Would like to see more accountability, transparency, and if there’s a way to save time and reduce the number of days as well.

3 Likes
9

You need a special access pass to speak with our elected special council members. Or so it would seem. :man_facepalming:

What happened to the opportunity to put questions to them we use to have?

Radio silence is not a good look always - as it only takes 30 seconds to write a quick reply - no one’s that busy right?

3 Likes
10

All I can say is I would like to see:

1.The earlier phases more automated, so that the FAC resources can be used on the decision making versus basic process work.

  1. I would like to have more requirements BEFORE an AIP idea gets a number. Arbitrum and ENS both have system to screen out earlier in the process so those that go to vote are likely to have significant support from voters (though they may not pass).
2 Likes
11

I tried that already. They said it wasn’t a good idea. You can see the 2<->3 changes in AIP-510: Streamline Proposal Times and Reporting

1 Like
12

Thing is, even if we shorten the before phase, the AIP could just sit in this dark phase after admin review for months without any update on what is happening or delaying. What’s the point of 1 month admin review if AIP won’t go up to vote after that.

DAO should propose and DAO should vote to pass AIP or not, instead of invisible people deciding.

13

I think we need to split clearly:

Process improvements or adjustments based on existing Modus Operandi - E.g. Changing a function in a working group or Steward(s) vs removing an entire function/Working Group.

Fundamental Constitutional Changes - E.g. Scraping Special Council or a Working Group

Grant Allocations - Requiring Funding under 250k

Grant Large Allocations - Requiring Funding over 250k

We should have different majority levels for different types of AIPs. This is common in other major DAOs. They also have diifferent Quorum requirements for different types of AIPs.

The timeline for different types of proposals can be different as well.

4 Likes
14

What you wrote are pretty important steps in our DAO.

2 Likes
15

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.