Suggested voting options : yes or no for ratification.
The attached charter includes some annexes to be immediately included within the charter, but are fungible and subject to change at the discretion of future councils by way of HCIP proposal. Only the annexes are fungible. The charter is non fungible and cannot be changed.
Yes, I support the ratification of the proposed Community DAO charter
No, I do not support the ratification of the proposed Community DAO charter.
Solid document, have seen the inception of this and although I have not had much involvement it is essential to the foundation of DAO governance! Happy to see this is up!
Need some quantitative data to define “Major”, “Small” as it relates to the spending. Otherwise it is left for massive interpretation. Is a major investment defined as a percentage of the treasury or a flat amount? As a member of a Board, I can assure you, that there will be interpretations of these vague terms that will lead to unintended consequences.
i.e. All major funding proposals must go through the HCIP
Major in this statement is left open for interpretation. This should be limited either in terms of percentages of the current treasury or a flat amount. IMO percentages of the treasury is better since it doesn’t require an amendment to change, but maybe that is not a bad thing either. Leaving the stakeholders (ONE HOLDERS) in charge of this type of vote, rather than simply giving the DAO governors the power to choose for themselves.
Another addition that I think will need to be added is the issue with consolidation of power amongst the DAO Governors. Specifically as it relates to consecutive terms. I strongly recommend that a limit be placed on consecutive terms followed by a cool down period of say 2 terms, as an example, on any DAO within the Harmony DAOs. This ensures that long term, there is no consolidation of power by a few. Fresh ideas need to be brought up to the forefront and this can only be accomplished by turn over. Folks over the long run, tend to get comfortable with the norm. In the event that there is no challenger to the incumbent than a term of half the original term can be allowed, but this would then add to the cool off period following. That is just an idea. Open for discussion.
