Proposal and delegate structure

I’ve been following the governance conversation with great interest and I hope to speak to some views I have seen in the discord. Please share your views, aligning now will eliminate friction later…

The purpose of having delegates is to bring differing viewpoints of INV holders to the table and this is why it is important that the holders have a chance to understand the delegate’s points of view.

Delegates should not need to own much INV to apply but instead be incentivized by their compensation being partly or entirely locked and vested.

It is the delegates responsibility to make sure that the decisions that impact the vision and long term functionality of the protocol are brought on chain to INV holders, and to let decisions in localized contexts be handled by those who are most involved. They should be able to make an internal vote on whether to bring a proposal on chain rather than using snapshot to save gas and the attention of INV holders.

Ranked voting has been my preferred way of voting for people, it’s really engaging. You rank all of the candidates after your own priority. Your view of each of them is expressed rather than just a single candidate as in simple votes.

Benefits of delegated gov token voting:
Ideas supported by INV holders enter the decision making process, agility and reduced organizational overhead, clear internal information flows, accountability.

Needs of the participants:

Token holder needs: to hold the delegates accountable, to get all relevant information in a manner which is easy to process.

Delegate needs: voting power, a proper medium to share their view on current proposals, transparency of the information flow in IF, monetary compensation.

Solidity skills are nice to have but a bounty can be issued for putting votes on chain.

For everyone to easily digest the information surrounding proposals, I suggest that each proposal names chapters of the different parts of the proposal which each delegate has a set amount of time to comment on, and also to have this collected in a way where the comments are easily compared. A google doc might do for now but I’m sure something better can come along.

Some possible chapter names: summary and scope, time frame, motivation, method, context, analysis, contribution/costs, risk, conflicts of interest.