Voted in favour of this, improving predictability, but no approval process. Its quite hard to stay up to date with the DAO and its voting on the side so this will really help clean up the DAO.
1 Like
Voted FOR this proposal.
We vote FOR “Predicability, Approval Process” and “Improving Predicability” as the next choice.
As described in our feedback to the original proposal, we had concerns on the approval process and criteria but Entropy team provided the updated proposal, which is reasonable to us, and since we see the Optimism Collective has applied this system in a slightly different form and it works to some extent, we believe it’s worth trying it at least as a trial. We also understand that the current form works as expected (a few proposals are rejected on Snapshot as temp-checks), and only improving predicability is already a reasonable improvement for the governance.
1 Like
We’re voting FOR Improving Predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s Operations.
This proposal addresses key operational challenges without major drawbacks. Setting Thursday as the standard voting day enhances predictability for delegates. The holiday break prevents burnout. These changes streamline governance processes and reduce delegate fatigue.
The optional delegate approval process warrants further discussion. While it could improve proposal quality, it may create barriers for new contributors. We suggest implementing the core changes first, then reassessing the need for additional processes.
Overall, this proposal offers simple yet effective improvements to DAO operations. It merits support to enhance governance efficiency.
I couldn’t agree more with this proposal. I definitely voted FOR.
The challenge of staying up-to-date, thoroughly analyzing proposals and their comments to provide a context-based and fully transparent opinion is a tremendous task that sometimes overlaps with other responsibilities due to the urgent need to raise our voice.
I love the new proposal, the designated off times, the order, and the structure it brings, as it will allow us, as delegates, to have better organization and planning for the DAO’s next steps and each of its initiatives.
Thank you for building this.
1 Like
Thank you for crafting this much-needed proposal. We agree that batching proposals will, “allow delegates who don’t follow discussions as closely a few days to see what will be voted on and properly prepare.”
With that said, we’d like to get some information on the workflow of batched proposals. Are you suggesting for Entropy to post all proposals to Snapshot and Tally or WILL proposers still BE required to find a sponsor to post? Also, will Entropy maintain a thread on the forum with all batched proposals to be posted? (so delegates can review and prepare to vote)
I voted in the following order on this proposal at the temp check stage:
- Improving Predictability
- Abstain
- Against
- Predictability, Approval Process
Starting all votes on Thursdays and introducing a holiday break will make it easier for delegates to prepare adequately to vote on proposals.
I don’t think an approval process is necessary. I think proposers are adequately incentivized to avoid submitting low value proposals by the Snapshot and Tally proposal thresholds and by the desire to avoid having a proposal fail in public.
@GFXlabs @SEEDGov @DisruptionJoe @Entropy Thanks for the suggestion/feedback re: Tally. We can implement a notification on proposals that are submitted outside the proposal window.
3 Likes
Dspyt Team voted FOR the proposal to improve predictability in Arbitrum DAO’s operations, opting for the “No Approval Process” option.
This decision reflects our belief in the importance of establishing a structured schedule for governance proposals and voting.
Such regularity will enhance community engagement, reduce delegate fatigue, and bring greater consistency to the DAO.
While we understand the intention behind the delegate approval process to foster cooperation, we are concerned that it may lead to increased political maneuvering. We recommend revisiting this idea for highly technical proposals in the future.
Overall, we support measures that increase transparency and operational efficiency, aligning with our mission to promote informed and active community participation.
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We vote in favor of both the implementation of the calendar and the implementation of the approval process.
We believe that the approval process can get delegates more involved in proposals early on, and prevent proposers from working on something that does not have enough support. It takes a lot of work and effort to make a good proposal, and we should make sure that it is not wasted just because delegates are reluctant to give honest feedback until the final on-chain vote.
While the approval process does not guarantee the proposal’s future success, it does ensure that at least some delegates have read it and supported it enough to give it a public thumbs up.
We fully agree with the first part of this initiative to improve predictability for delegate participation. However, the delegate approval process in its current suggested form requires further discussion. Whether or not temperature checks should have additional hurdles for the sake of delegate fatigue is something we have yet to form opinion on fully.
We believe that we should have more temperature check votes in general, for new ideas that aren’t that deeply planned and that more than likely fail, but also bring hard and fast attention to potentially critical or innovative issues (e.g. Camelot’s incentive proposal). However, we also understand the concerns around low quality and low support votes. We look forward to a healthy discussion on this topic moving forward.
2 Likes
Voting for “Improving Predictability”, I agree that having a more set schedule can help with delegates planning their voting. While I can see the argument voting can be delayed a week if a deadline is missed, I don’t think that is a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
I will not be voting for the delegate approval process. I don’t think the volume of votes really requires it and projects already have the ability to get delegate input beforehand if they are inclined too.
The Snapshot vote has concluded with Improving Predictability as the top choice. Therefore the DAO has elected to adopt Thursday as the day for both Snapshot & Tally votes to start/end as well as implement a holiday break from December 20th, 2024 to January 6th, 2025.
The remaining timeline as outlined in the proposal is still on track:
Next steps to be carried out by the Entropy team:
- Confirm delegates with >500k VP are aware of these new guidelines.
- Work with authors of proposals that look like they will be up for a vote soon to help prepare a smooth transition going into August.
- Work with the Foundation to make sure these guidelines are visible and easy to access on the forums.
- Updating the Arbitrum Delegate Google Calendar.
- Continue communication with Snapshot, Tally, and Seed Latam teams to make sure “soft” enforcements as suggested by GFX Labs are implemented.
With there being notable interest from some delegates for a more detailed approval process, we are committed to helping the DAO reassess this option at a later date, potentially in the beginning of 2025 after the newly adopted holiday break. Our team will continue to ideate and take in feedback for how we can get more delegates involved earlier in the proposal discussion process.
Thank you to everyone for providing thoughtful comments and suggestions on this topic.
8 Likes
Edit: The authors for both of these proposals decided to delay their move to Snapshot. Please check the proposals for up to date information.
After reaching out to proposal authors, 2 have indicated the need to go to a vote this week. So these Snapshot votes will begin on Thursday, July 25th.
The Foundation has also posted the first round up of active & upcoming votes. Weekly voting reminders can be found in forum under this new topic.
The Arbitrum Delegate Google Calendar has been updated to reflect the newly adopted holiday period.
3 Likes
Not sure who’s intending to put the vote up but just a heads up that the date for the proposal app is August 1st here
1 Like
DAOplomats voted in favor of Improving Predictability.
As we communicated earlier, we were supportive of the holiday break towards the end of the year and having all proposals start on Thursdays.
@Entropy I am looking at the calendar and I am just seeing December 20, falls on a Friday. Thus, a ton of proposals could get in just a day before the start of the holidays resulting in a week’s holiday being missed. Is that something to be addressed or would there be no new proposals posted on the 19th?
@WinVerse The thought process when designing the holiday break for December 20th - January 6th, was that all votes would end on December 19th. We had envisioned the last batch of votes to begin the week prior on December 12th, so nothing new being posted on the 19th.
Thank you for bringing this up, as it should have been made more clear in the proposal. As we approach the end of the year we will make sure to coordinate with the Foundation and top delegates to get a few announcements posted.
2 Likes
Hello @Entropy!
I would like to propose an enhancement to the current setup. Despite all improvements in place, we still have delegates “caught in surprise” because a topic went to vote on Snapshot or Tally. And we have authors struggling to get feedback on their proposals, to understand if it ready for vote, if they make sense at all or not.
Background
Currently, we have these tools to help us to get a sense of when a proposal will go to vote:
The Awesome Weekly Reminders by @cliffton.eth, and Telegram messages with the same content. Someone could also check Snapshot itself and check if there is a proposal scheduled to vote.
We also have the Bi-Weekly Proposals discussion, happening on Tuesdays, every two weeks, where we discuss proposals that are live, and relevant topics.
However, we are still having some issues there. My proposal would be to do a slight adjust on what we have right now.
Motivation
Let’s have an agreement (not sure if we need a vote for this) that all authors wanting to send their Snapshot proposal to vote on Thursday, need to participate on the Open Discussion Call. That will signal their intention to have the topic to vote in the next Thursday. The same is true for Tally, but they would need to participate in the call of the previous week, because of the on-chain delay (image explaining this better below) for Tally votes.
As the Tally proposals have a 3 days-delay before going live, they need to be submitted on Mondays to go live on Thursdays.
Benefits of this:
- Structured flow, enhanced predictability: Everyone knows that the authors of the topics being discussed have the intention to put them into vote in the next few days.
- Call to action to all delegates - participate of the call, make your questions, as the proposal is going live in a few days
- Authors get feedback before putting the proposal to vote. While not all proposals should be approved, it is a waste of time and effort for all involved when a proposal with “preventable” issues goes to a vote.
Specification
Changes that would need to be made:
- Make “mandatory” the presence on the call of an author for secure a “slot” in the next proposal windows.
- Make the Call weekly instead of bi-weekly. @cliffton.eth could you signal if this workload is too heavy? I can propose myself to facilitate this, but I think @Sinkas or any guys from @Entropy would be more suitable.
Happy to have other ideas on this, but I think these small changes could improve our processes a lot - tagging other guys that I saw talking about this already @JoJo @DisruptionJoe @Immutablelawyer @AlexLumley @SEEDGov
4 Likes
does make sense. Remindes me some diagram about bribe voting, you know what I am talking about.
Jokes aside, my question is: are we already in a situation in which the biweekly call should become a weekly one? Because what you proposed make sense but has this nasty byproduct that we should try to push away as much as possible. Reason is simple, if we settle now on weekly call means that in 1y from now we are gonna be likely drowning in stuff to do. I don’t think we are there yet, because while sometimes gov calls go over the counter, sometimes instead they finish a few minutes earlier. Intuitively, this makes me think the biweekly allocation is enough to manage the load of proposal, which makes me wonder if the proposals should go to snapshot instead on a biweekly cadence.
Everyone loves excalidraw, right? 
I don’t have strong instance on weekly or bi-weekly. The main point here is to have a way to:
- Signal intention to move to vote
- Have time to discuss it before goes to vote (Last call)
- Have a flow that is known by all involved
The idea was to accommodate it to the current calendar, while giving the opportunity to centralize this actions (discussion/notification) in a single event.
2 Likes
I actually think that this process is a great idea - also lets delegates leave aside time to allocate and plan accordingly to participate in props. Makes sense to me.