March 17, 2026 - Open Discussion of Proposals Governance Call

Logistics

The link to join today’s governance call to discuss the proposal pipeline and notable discussions is also on the governance calendar.

Date: March 17, 2026
Time: 16:00 - 17:00 UTC
Video call link: meet.google.com/dfo-xora-ysp

Approach

The agenda below will be fluid.

For authors and/or key contributors of these proposals, it would be helpful if you could include a TL;DR of your proposal/discussion in the comments so delegates can review them and prepare their questions for the call.

Agenda

1. On-Chain AIPs (Tally)

  • N/A

2. Successful Off-Chain AIPS

3. Off-Chain AIPs (Snapshot)

  • N/A

4. Notable Proposal Discussions (Or upcoming snapshots)

5. Quick updates

Please comment below if there are any updates that you wish to share during the call.

Additional Notes

  • We prioritise all proposals and notable discussions that have more engagement.
  • The logic of the two weeks is that given the proposal lifecycle (one week on the forum, one week on Snapshot, and then two weeks on Tally). This means that even if a proposal takes the shortest possible route, it will be covered at least at the proposal and Tally stage, or the Snapshot and Tally stage.
  • For anything that needs a recap, they could be parked after these discussions.
4 Likes

The recording of the call can be found here, along with a transcript and the chat log.

1 Like

Is there a calendar to subscribe the future events?

1 Like

You can find the DAO Calendar and add it to your Google Calendar here.

1 Like

Thanks for the agenda OpCo.

On the Security Council Contender Submissions, I have been actively reviewing the candidate threads and raising due diligence questions around conflict of interest disclosures and succession planning. One pattern worth discussing on the call: several high-profile applications are submitted as organizational entities rather than individuals. It may be worth the community discussing whether the election framework should require named backup representatives as part of formal candidacy documentation, rather than leaving succession as an organizational commitment.

Happy to contribute that thread to the discussion if useful. @OpCo @bear-wang

Something worth noting here is that there’s a very solid counter-argument to not naming the exact representative: opsec.

It might be better if you know which entity is in the Security Council, but do not know the exact person responsible.

1 Like

That’s a fair and important point, @Sinkas opsec is a legitimate concern, especially given the sensitivity of Security Council roles.

To clarify my earlier suggestion: I wasn’t proposing that the named backup representative be publicly disclosed. The intent was more around confidential disclosure to the DAO or election committee so that in a succession scenario, the transition doesn’t get blocked simply because no one formally knows who steps in next.

Knowing the entity is in the council is useful, but if the entity itself faces an internal leadership gap or crisis, the DAO still has no clear escalation path. A confidential backup record could address that without compromising opsec.

Happy to discuss further this seems like an important design question for the election framework.