Summary This proposal seeks to improve the VDP-19, defining the processes to on- and offboard working group stewards. Several shortcomings have been noticed, including a too restrictive way of onboarding as well as a too inconsiderate way of offboarding stewards. Final changes are pending community …

A lot of the discussion above relates to a dispute resolution process which deserves its own space outside of this proposal. I’ve provided that space in section e) of VDP-37 , phrased it to reflect the discussion above, and would encourage to continue the discussion there. See also this comment .

[image] longevion: Usually we build consensus in this DAO and it’s the ideal. Rarely do we have to and should resort to majority rule. That’s an interesting take, would need to think more about that. From my experience, most DAOs do in fact have quite uniform on-chain votes, although this is …

[image] Savva: Another question I had was to confirm this process of appointment and removal of VitaCore members will also apply to the newly proposed expanded definition ( VDP-34 Defining VitaCore ) In my understanding, the VDP-34 says that VitaCore does only consist of members who are there i…

We’re in agreement that nobody requires consensus. We attempt to build it and appeal to majority rule (in which up to 49% are unhappy) only if that fails. We do that already. By the time something makes it to a majority vote we’re usually aligned. Otherwise you’d see a lot of variations with some p…

Fully agree. Consensus shouldn’t be required to account for edge cases, but we should always do our best to consider all opposing arguments and aim for consensus!

Did we cover everyone’s concerns and are there any more substantial edits to be made to the proposal? The last significant change was made two days ago, so unless there will be another one the proposal may move to phase 3 in five days.

[image] Savva: JAMS pursuant to its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures This conversation has gotten quite involved. The main points at issue are: Who can nominate a steward Dispute Resolution (covered by another proposal, but discussed heavily here) How do challenges work Majori…

[image] audieleon: Who Can Nominate a Steward (…) This is the way I would suggest we word it: “Any single steward, or any three working group members can nominate anyone as a new steward who fulfils and agrees to the requirements listed below.” We need to keep this criteria simple and not itself…

[image] audieleon: The subjective criteria of “significant overlap” is undefined and unsuitable as a criteria for a stewardship nomination. I suggest we make this more concrete so we don’t end up with another path for significant disagreement. This is the way I would suggest we word it: “Any sin…

[image] theobtl: Given that a) the options for VitaCore to challenge are now heavily regulated by the Code of Conduct and b) any legitimate challenge that would occur after the working group had already voted on a nomination does indeed cause high damage, I would second @audieleon ’s suggestion t…

VDP-36 Stewardship Process Amendment #1

Proposals Archived Proposals

theobtl July 14, 2022, 3:10pm 29

FYI, there’s now a counter proposal to this proposal: VDP-52 stewards election proposal options

Topic		Replies	Views
VitaDAO Governance Amendment #2 Archived Proposals	13	1633	March 4, 2022
VDP-51 Stewardship election [counter proposal] Archived Proposals	19	2245	August 18, 2022
VDP-19 Stewardship Process Passed Proposals	14	2013	January 19, 2022
VDP-78: Steward Election Process Passed Proposals	23	1788	February 14, 2023
VDP-37 VitaDAO Governance Amendment #2 Archived Proposals	35	3310	August 8, 2022

VDP-36 Stewardship Process Amendment #1

Related topics