# \[Non-Constitutional\] Let’s improve our governance forum with three proposals.app feature integrations **URL:** \ **Category:** Archived Proposals\ **Tags:** proposal, governance, proposal-discussions\ **Created:** [June 5, 2025, 12:11pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-let-s-improve-our-governance-forum-with-three-proposals-app-feature-integrations/29398 "2025-06-05T12:11:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 32
**Author:** ![Arbitrum](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/arbitrum/32/2693_2.png) [@Arbitrum](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/Arbitrum)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 9:37am UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-let-s-improve-our-governance-forum-with-three-proposals-app-feature-integrations/29398/32 "2025-06-11T09:37:42Z")
Thank you for the proposal. We agree that there should be more focus on supporting governance tooling. Disjointed governance is a pain point for a multitude of DAOs and is a significant barrier to entry for newcomers. Having said that, we’d recommend putting a pause on this proposal for now, for the following reasons: - **Wider strategic proposal needed.** - **Proposed cost structure.** - **Technical implementation restrictions.** This proposal might be a good opportunity for the DAO, including the AF, to start thinking about how to improve governance UX as part of a wider strategy. Accordingly, we believe this conversation should be moved to the ‘Technical Discussion’ category. It is important that, we avoid vendor lock-in via the governance process, and believe OpCo might be in a good position to help navigate the evolution of governance. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-constitutional-let-s-improve-our-governance-forum-with-three-proposals-app-feature-integrations/29398)._