Discussion: Governance Cycle

General
1

At @Gabriel’s request, this document initiates a discussion on a possible governance cycle framework.

Indeed, establishing a governance cycle can help address the fragmentation of proposals by providing a fixed schedule for members to review proposals, rather than having to constantly monitor updates or risk forgetting to engage. In fact, experience shows that structured proposal cycles significantly improve community participation.

Below is a proposed cycle structure for discussion purposes.

Using a monthly governance cycle as an example, each cycle begins on the 1st and ends on the 31st of the month. It is divided into the following phases:

  • 1. Proposal Submission Period (1st–7th):
    Community members may submit draft proposals to the governance forum (drafts must follow the required template format). Feedback may be freely solicited during this time.
  • 2.Proposal Review Period (8th–14th):
    Drafts are reviewed by the GTU team (if it exists) and the Consensus Unit respectively (as defined in AIP-12). Approved drafts advance to become “Candidate Proposals.” Proposals that are not approved are returned for revision.
  • 3.Community Discussion Period (15th–22nd):
    Candidate proposals are pinned for open discussion on the forum. No substantive changes may be made during this phase. Proposers are expected to respond to questions and help build preliminary consensus.
  • 4.On-Chain Voting Period (23rd–25th):
    Formal voting is initiated via Snapshot or an on-chain voting platform, using a one-token-one-vote system. The voting period lasts three days.
  • 5.Result Confirmation and Execution Preparation (26th–31st):
    Proposals that pass enter the execution preparation phase. Relevant multisig signers, execution agents, or partners begin implementation planning based on the proposal’s content.

If the DAO decides to adopt a governance cycle, we will need to determine the following:
– Cycle length (e.g., one month, one quarter, or longer);
– Timing adjustments for each phase;
– Any additional process content.

Once consensus is reached, the governance cycle will be formalized into a proposal and submitted for a community vote.

2 Likes
2

Structure is important. Scheduling is important. Routine is easy to prepare for. Yes this needs to be done.

1 Like
3

This is great, something like this should be implemented.

My only concern is that the next period after we elect multisigs - we need to deal with a lot of questions as I have outlined in previous posts. These questions may all each need proposals… For example, continue the DAO, mission, goals, projects, eth for liquidity, refund accidental JUSTICE token burners with JUSTICE, 2 more multisigs to replace Rose/Amir, move to fully on-chain governance,

We need to be able to do multiple proposals quickly - some we may be able to launch at the same time but many we won’t be able to launch at the same time. So I don’t want this to actually slow us down.

Also what about shorter months, February for example only has 28 days etc

4

When I wrote the draft, I took into account the shorter dates in February and I scheduled the implementation phase for a total of six days (26-31). So if it’s February we have three days, the other months are five and six days respectively. I think just one month as February each year of intense execution may not have problem. I hope that the date of every period will be fixed, otherwise the different dates each month can be a nuisance to people.

Also looking for more input, I’ll be forming it into a proposal as soon as this weekend.

1 Like