Proposal: Time Management in Arbitrum’s Governance

[cattin]

Time Management in Arbitrum’s Governance

Informational Non-Constitutional AIP

Summary

To optimize time and organization, we propose that all Snapshot voting, that is, Phase 1 (as displayed on our diagram on the details of the proposal below), start on Monday of each week.

This will be organized as follows:

• 17 Votes for what remains of this 2023 (starting from September)
• 53 Votes throughout 2024

Motivation

On April 2nd, the Arbitrum governance presented its first proposal for discussion. Since then, the forum has received about 39 proposals covering a variety of topics and motivations. Although most of these discussions have been managed in an orderly manner, an increase in the volume of daily proposals could lead to the disorganization of the DAO and an overload of work for the voters.

The order and predictability of the dates aim to make the DAO more efficient without losing its dynamism.

Justification

We consider it necessary to establish the basic infrastructure for the DAO. Therefore, we propose an improvement in the scheduling of proposals. As time goes on, we are likely to see more and more proposals being published; this growth in proposals is fundamental for Arbitrum’s success, so we must be organized so that the flow of voting and proposal is as clear and simple as possible.

Details of the Proposal

Currently, the procedure to bring an AIP to a vote is as follows:

A proposal can be sent to Snapshot (by an address with a weighted vote of 0.01%) randomly any day of the week.

We propose that proposals only be sent to Snapshot every Monday so that the votes start at the beginning of the week. The votes for 1 month would look something like this:

Considerations

• More than one proposal can be sent to Snapshot. This depends on the delegates who pass the proposals to vote.
• This schedule does not interfere with the security council voting process.
• Proposals should be sent to Snapshots every Monday from 00:00 until 23:59.
• If a proposal is not sent to Snapshot the Monday after its publication, it can still be sent in the following weeks.
• There may be some Mondays when there are no proposals to publish.
• In case the Arbitrum Foundation integrates a Governance Facilitator, this should ensure that the schedule is followed.

We also have to emphasize that given the nature of onchain governance, this proposal isn’t necessarily binding to delegates - since delegates can still push proposals at any moment, so it simply serves as a recommendation for better organizational practices and forum guidelines, making Arbitrum’s governance more predictable for both contributors and voters.

Timeline

This proposal, if accepted, can be implemented immediately since it is not necessary to implement a smart contract or move funds. It can also start 1 or 2 weeks after being voted on.

General Cost

This AIP does not require funds.

---

Prior to this proposal, we had sent an RFC to the forum, you can read it here

We would like to thank @menaskop and @DisruptionJoe for their feedback on this proposal.

[cattin]

The proposal is now live on snapshot:
https://snapshot.org/#/arbitrumfoundation.eth/proposal/0x5c0cecde14ec0b83c954b47c2d79348ce249019b83894f3938fc80b45e1232da

[Griff]

Just to be clear…

• Proposals should be sent to Snapshots every Monday from 00:00 until 23:59.

Is there an assumed canonical timezone, or are we talking in UTC, or are we following a variable timezone based on where the proposer is located?

[cattin]

Yea, sorry - I should’ve been more specific about that, but given that UTC is a neutral timezone, I think we should go with that unless the DAO thinks we should use another timezone.

[Goodo]

good order of voting - Yes

[Curia]

We’re voting in favor of scheduling all Snapshot votes to commence on Mondays for several key reasons:

1. Streamlined Governance: This proposal help streamlined the governance process, allowing participants to allocate their time effectively and concentrate on each proposal.
2. Predictability & Transparency: A consistent schedule enhances both transparency and predictability, empowering the community to better prepare for upcoming votes.
3. Ease of Implementation: Given that there are no technical or financial barriers, this proposal can be swiftly enacted without straining resources.
4. A Good Starting Point: This proposal serves as a foundational step toward a well-organized governance structure. It opens the door for future iterations and fine-tuning to further improve Arbitrum’s governance framework.

Overall, I am convinced that adopting this schedule will contribute to a more organized, and transparent governance framework, thereby benefiting the Arbitrum community as a whole.

[krst]

The below response 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 are voting FOR this proposal in the temperature check, with a suggestion that it can be still improved before being put for an onchain vote.

Establishing a cadence in which proposals are pushed to a vote can help streamline the process both for proposers and delegates so we’ll support this proposal. We do want to bring up some things to consider though:

• The DAO is still picking up the pace when it comes to active contributors and proposals, so the described procedure might soon prove itself too long or too short. We should keep track of any challenges that arise and reassess the cadence if needed.
• Mobilising the DAO to vote on something that cannot really be enforced, as outlined in your proposal as well, might be a waste of time for governance participants, and a waste of gas money if there is an on-chain vote. Perhaps only doing a Snapshot vote would help with that.
• Not voting on the other hand would make it challenging to have contributors adhere to the outlined procedure voluntarily, as it won’t be something introduced or officially accepted by the DAO.

We’d also like to take the opportunity and suggest that the process is somehow connected to the monthly Open Governance Call. It’d be a great opportunity for proposers to pitch their proposals, and for delegates to collectively review and discuss them.

[ITUblockchain]

One of the most crucial elements in making wise decisions in governance, in our opinion, is time management. Although the fact that proposals can come at any time allows people to present their ideas without a time limit, it can create problems in terms of time management and examining the ideas presented. With the arrangement outlined in the proposal, the delegates can schedule the proposal review processes, allowing them to more effectively grasp the incoming proposals and give them a thorough inspection before making judgments. Additionally, the voting process can go seamless as the number of proposals rises. As a result, both the community’s confidence in Arbitrum governance and its effectiveness can be increased. Considering all these factors, we have decided to vote in favor of this proposal.

[axlvaz_SEEDLATAM.eth]

Hi @krst, thanks for your feedback and support.

We have a few points we want to highlight:

@krst

The DAO is still picking up the pace when it comes to active contributors and proposals, so the described procedure might soon prove itself too long or too short. We should keep track of any challenges that arise and reassess the cadence if needed.

Yes, we know this from the beginning, but the idea of this one is to establish an order and then iterate. As we have expressed before, set up these processes to have a first order and then change according to the needs of the DAO.

@krst

• Mobilising the DAO to vote on something that cannot really be enforced, as outlined in your proposal as well, might be a waste of time for governance participants, and a waste of gas money if there is an on-chain vote. Perhaps only doing a Snapshot vote would help with that.
• Not voting on the other hand would make it challenging to have contributors adhere to the outlined procedure voluntarily, as it won’t be something introduced or officially accepted by the DAO.

In this we are in 100% agreement, however we decided to go ahead with the proposal and we believe in the good predisposition of the DAO members. Also, that is why we had proposed the role of the Facilitator, to help manage these times.

We had many doubts at the beginning, whether to propose this or not, but we believe that order is necessary and predictability helps to make the job of being a delegate easier.

@krst

We’d also like to take the opportunity and suggest that the process is somehow connected to the monthly Open Governance Call. It’d be a great opportunity for proposers to pitch their proposals, and for delegates to collectively review and discuss them.

This is the idea behind the proposal, that the rest of the activities adapt and everything has an order. We attend all the Open Governance Calls, we think it is a great space.

A clear example of this is the sessions that he proposed for the postulation of the domain allocator.

Arbitrum DAO Grants Domain Allocator Nominations

First of all, we’d like to congratulate Questbook for getting so many great nominees in this process, it bodes very well for the future of the Domain Allocator program! Following the conclusion of the Domain Allocators nominations for Questbook’s grant program, we’d like to propose and facilitate 2 nominees’ pitching sessions. During the sessions, nominees for the different domain allocators roles will have an opportunity to convince delegates why they should vote for them by presenting why th…

I don’t know if this was pre-established, but it is a very good idea for the delegates to have a space to listen to the applicants. Let’s keep in mind that we all knew when the proposal was going to be voted on. This predictability helps these things happen organically.