Summary: Goldfinch aims to continue to improve the efficiency of the governance process. For this reason we are suggesting to set up a 15 days cool-down period for proposals which don’t meet the quorum from the first attempt on snapshot voting. We have witnessed how some proposals do not receive the adequate exposure on snapshot, and want to offer a chance for the community to vote an additional time. After this cool down period is over, we can put a proposal for a snapshot voting again, but we suggest only implementing this once. If the proposal doesn’t reach the quorum for the second time, the whole governance procedure should start from the very beginning.
We believe this happens during times when the 3 voting days partially fall on the weekend or public holidays - ie.days when the engagement inside the community is lower and most community members are offline.
Desired Outcomes and Success Metrics: To improve the general experience among the community members in the governance process (especially snapshot voting) and to increase the success rate of proposals by giving them the best chance of exposure.
Downside: A 15 days cool-down period might add more complexity to the decision-making process and will require community management to apply more efforts while managing & tracking proposals.
Hey! Thanks for a feedback, but we won’t change or get rid of the 3 days voting period. However, we are suggesting to introduce a 15 days cool-down period for proposals, which don’t meet the quorum at the first attempt during the 3 days voting period. Hence, the voting period remains the same. @carnage_dima
Just add an additional rule that the next 2 days will count ONLY quality posts, not just “Yes I’m for” "No I’m against.
But it’s better to leave everything as it is, I think, and just introduce a rule that votes are taken ONLY from Monday to Wednesday.
Thank you for your opinion, however I’m not sure that we are on the same page with you, as we talk more about the way what we do with a proposal, which doesn’t meet the quorum on the Snapshot voting in 3 days period here: Snapshot
Just FYI no proposal is moved to the Snapshot unless it gets the consensus on the governance forum.
I don’t understand why you don’t support this proposal.
May you explain, pls?
Hello. As I understand it, if the proposal does not gain a quorum of 250k in 3 days of voting, then it is given (only once) a 15 day period to gain a quorum. Since perhaps people simply did not see it in time and did not vote for this proposal. I think this is a good idea, because, to be honest, I often missed voting on deadlines, although they seem to always have a quorum. But I see there are examples when the quorum does not have time. That’s why I vote for this proposal!
Is it possible to make a voting period of two types?
For example, if a question is put forward for a vote that needs to be resolved as soon as possible, then set a period of 3 days for it, and 7 days for more open ones, since I think that 15 days is too much and people can just forget about it , especially if there are new votes in this period.
My vote is NO
@Stinfer Just to clarify, we don’t ask to have a 15 days voting period, as it’s impossible, but we ask for a 15 days period before we move the proposal to the snapshot again for another 3 days period of time! This happens only if the proposal doesn’t meet the quorum at first attempt during 3 days period on Snapshot.
We can’t change the mechanics of the snapshot voting and adjust it to a different period, which is not equal to 3 days.
15 days is a lot, and having such a long time, everyone will think - I will have time, but they can forget. It seems that the 5-day period is quite suitable regardless of the weekend. Issues must be resolved quickly, otherwise, it will drag on for years.
Many thanks for your feedback! However, we believe that 15 days is an optimal choice, as most of the time people take 2 weeks off for vacation. And our motivation according to this proposal is to let everyone have a second chance to vote in case they have missed the first one.
Hi, I think this is a good start to improving the user experience of voting.
This will make it easier for people to participate in the voting process and hopefully lead to better results.
The downside is that the process will get more ‘‘complicated’’, I think this won’t necessarily make it more complicated but it will slow the process down. Which I don’t think is a bad thing. This will not only allow people to have more time to see the proposal so the quorum is reached but will also give people more time to make the decision.