Hi all,
thanks for the lively discussion and the many interesting ideas (in the original post and all the answers).
As is evident from this discussion, there are a few things that we might want to improve in governance. Also, there are already many different ideas how to achieve some of these improvements (e.g., including internal discussions as mentioned here).
As already announced by @bjoernek in a different thread, we think that it would be good to set up a governance working group. It sounds like many of the things discussed here would be perfect for discussing in this group!
We are looking into how and when to set this up, likely this will happen after we wrapped up the SNS MVP work.
One feedback to the main post (some of this has already been mentioned by others): it might be beneficial for the discussion here, as well as for the working group, to make very explicit…
- What are the core problems that a proposal tries to solve? Why are these problems?
- Can the design / problem statement be broken down into different components? (E.g., here the concept of roadmap proposals seems to be new. Is this something that would also be relevant independently of committee neurons?)
- How is this design different (pros and cons) from the current implementation and from alternative options?
- Can the proposal be evaluated against the governance goals defined here or does it propose new goals that should be added (that is, does it suggest that we change what we mean by “good governance”)?