# Change to New Governance Contracts that Allow Proposal Cancellation

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/change-to-new-governance-contracts-that-allow-proposal-cancellation/27531>\
**Category:** Finalized AIPs\
**Created:** [November 15, 2024, 5:52am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/change-to-new-governance-contracts-that-allow-proposal-cancellation/27531 "2024-11-15T05:52:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2024, 9:30pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/change-to-new-governance-contracts-that-allow-proposal-cancellation/27531/8 "2024-11-15T21:30:53Z")

</div>

> [@paulofonseca](#):
>
> If using the proxy upgradeable contract pattern was not used this time because it wasn’t the most secure option according to Scopelift, will it be used in the second upgrade to allow for flexible voting? If so, why? If not, will the governor contracts change again in a few months because of the flexible voting change?

maybe this above is a question to @bendi so tagging him here

Also, another technical question, are the contracts that [were deployed a few months ago mentioned here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-governance-upgrade-rollout-timeline/26462), not the ones that are going to be used now? if not, why? if so, why does this proposal still doesn’t mention the new governor addresses and says that the addresses will be included before this proposal goes for a temperature check vote?

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/change-to-new-governance-contracts-that-allow-proposal-cancellation/27531)._