Reducing Council Size and Simplifying Election

Draft Proposals
1

Abstract

This proposal aims to streamline the governance processes of the DAO while ensuring that voting power is judiciously distributed among stakeholders and members. These will come as a series of proposals to make them easier to digest.

Motivation

Recent developments have highlighted the necessity of simplifying the governance structure to enable the DAO to operate effectively without the facilitation of Laguna Games. Rather than an imposed change, this proposal should be viewed as a curated list of options that the DAO can mix and match to tailor a governance model that best meets its unique needs and objectives.

Details

On Streamlining Council Operations

A. Council Member Count
Given the scaled-down operations, I believe it is necessary to reduce the number of elected Councilors to 5.

B. Council Election
To simplify the election process and minimize the facilitation required, we propose returning to a nomination-based system - removing the Candidacy Filing, Qualification Checking and Campaign Period from the process.

Nomination:

  • Nominations occur over a 3-day period.
  • Any sCU holder may nominate a candidate, providing a Discord ID and a brief rationale for their nomination.

Nomination Acceptance:

  • Acceptance occurs over a 2-day period.
  • Nominees must explicitly accept their nomination and confirm their understanding of Council Member responsibilities.

C. Council Removal
To streamline facilitation, the Council shall hold an internal review to determine whether a Council Member should be removed, rather than automatic removal.

  • Removal: If a Council Member no longer meets the membership criteria, fails to uphold eligibility criteria, or neglects their responsibilities, the Council may conduct an internal vote for dismissal, decided by a simple majority.

D. Impeachment Process
To reduce facilitation requirements, an impeachment process is proposed directly on the forum and voted on Snapshot without prior Temperature Check and Council Review.

Impeachment

  • If a Council Member acts contrary to the DAO’s interests in ways not covered by the removal criteria or if the DAO disagrees with the result of the Council’s internal vote, an Impeachment Proposal may be submitted.
  • Impeachment Proposals will not go through Council review.

Conclusion

I believe these changes will simplify the governance process, allowing members to effectively continue DAO operations by distributing responsibilities among themselves and adopting a more straightforward approach.

2

Similar to my other council comment, I cannot support the facade of a game surviving when we all know it will not.

I am set distribution of whatever is left when we all move on, or I do not think I will be supporting any form of proposal that transfers everything to the DAO and Council. I don’t like it and it wont work at this point.

3

You definitely should assume that the DAO continues because you don’t even know if you’re gonna get enough people to support your proposal in Snapshot. If that doesn’t pass, then by default, the DAO continues and the existing governance process and operations continue which is not gonna be easy to maintain if you councillors don’t make a contingency plan. I would imagine making it simpler is to your (councillors in general) benefit.

4

It won’t matter, we will continue with what money? what project? I get you trying to create hope and a structure and I appreciate it, but to me, if it doesn’t pass then its all over. If this means just keeping everything the same or changing it, nothing will matter. We are left with rags to run a whole project, no thank you at that point. I would rather just keep everything the same and pass nothing.

5

It has legal implications too, which I don’t really want to get to right now.

Thus, if the proposal to distribute doesn’t end up being the path, I would rather not change anything else for legal reasons.

6

For now, the only binding legal agreement governing the DAO is the charter.

7

This is unnecessary too. I don’t see how this change will be any impactful once we run out of treasury. Time to implement these changes was few months ago. Not now.

8

Exactly why I dont want to change things on the charter that arent necessary.

9

Review Result: Fail - will not push through Snapshot voting.

For: 5
Against: 6
Missed the review: 0