Voting in Favor — allowing the proposal submitter to cancel (during the 3-day delegation period) is a strict win, accounting for e.g. human-error cases caught after proposal submission. It also gives the Security Council a cleaner means of canceling proposals if need be.
- Point of clarification: the Security Council already has the affordance to cancel proposals; it could be done, e.g., via a proxy-upgrade of the governance contract. This proposal only lets the SC do so in a way that is technically simpler, easier to track after the fact, etc. Thus, the question of under what conditions the SC should be expected to cancel proposals is a perfectly valid one, but one that should be discussed independent of this proposal, as it isn’t relevant
I also support the ultimate decision to carry out this upgrade via a proxy upgrade instead of a redeploy, on the following grounds:
- The rest of the governance system uses proxy contracts, and all things equal, we should default to consistency for the sake of minimizing complexity and operational overhead.
- Upgrading via redeploying and altering the timelock affordance breaks history tracking, and, more critically, requires the transfer of contract state, which could get especially messy if an update is taking place while other proposals are live.
- As far as I can tell, there would be no clear benefit gained from the redeployment route.