Establishing a Founding Framework for Polkadot Governance

[XCAstronaut]

Regarding the Polkadot DAO, I believe we as an ecosystem are in a very similar position to the United States following the Revolutionary War and claiming independence from England—we find ourselves with the freedom to govern; however, we are struggling to thrive without a proper structure of governance.

I also believe that we can learn a lot from history and the formation of governance systems in the United States, recognizing the good, the bad, and the ugly. For example, Congress was once very similar to the state of OpenGov now, where all voting members handle a plethora of diverse matters. Over time, it became apparent that this was not sustainable, so different committees were created to help organize members across areas of expertise & streamline early reviews & decision-making processes for these bodies before all members of Congress later vote on finalized proposals. On the flip side, looking at today, the United States government & Congress is arguably inefficient, divided, and slow to act. Additionally, while there is a system of checks & balances, the executive branch of government is potentially the most fertile for corruption as immense power is bestowed upon a single person.

@alice_und_bob previously started a similar conversation back in September of 2023, which I recommend everybody check out: Polkadot Governance Framework - v2023.09

With everything said, I believe Polkadot is due for its own version of a “constitutional convention” where a starting governance framework can be established, including establishing core founding collectives, committees, bounties, roles, procedures, treasury budgeting, etc. Polkadot is a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO); however, it is heavily lacking on the “organization front,” so I believe it is important for the community to:

1. Establish the “O” while Preserving the “D&A” in DAO

• Collectives & Objectives
• Committees & Bounties
• Councils & Boards
• Roles & Permissions
• Elections & Appointments

2. Budget like a business to fix the Treasury

• Budget Frequency
• Revenue Projections
• Operational Needs & Means
• Public Spending Tracks
• Treasury Diversification & Payouts
• Budget Composition & Enactment

3. Enforce a System of Checks & Balances

• Handle Claims & Disputes
• Avoiding Conflicts of Interest
• Impeachment & Removal Process(es)

I have put together an initial framework of different governing and operation bodies. This framework is intended to provide a structured starting point; however, it is not expected to look the same as what the community ultimately approves of. It may even look radically different. The community could decide that some collectives are unnecessary while others are missing & needed. What I am sharing below is also not complete. I intend to outline specific roles, which is necessary for estimating operating costs. For what it’s worth, I believe that some members can serve multiple roles at once (for example, being on 2 committees within the same collective) I also plan on detailing specific procedures & responsibilities; however, I want to share what I have now so that the community can begin to chime in and even share their thoughts & ideas. I also plan on proposing a process for going through each section, debating & amending the entire proposal, and then detailing the technical implementation of its final form.

Again, the community could decide to change virtually everything. However, I am confident that if all of the main points below are considered & addressed, Polkadot will be on a much better track than it is currently on.

1. Collectives, Committees, Councils, Bounties, and Roles.

The purpose of this segment is to outline the core departments & roles within the DAO.

1.1. Technical Collective

• 1.1a. Technical Research Committee
• 1.1b. Protocol Development Committee
• 1.1c. Interface Development Committee

1.2. Growth Collective

• 1.2a. Project Onboarding Committee
• 1.2b. Business Development Committee
• 1.2c. Project Incubation Committee
• 1.2d. Support Services Committee

1.3. Marketing Collective

• 1.3a. Content Creation Committee
• 1.3b. Social Media Committee
• 1.3c. News Media Committee
• 1.3d. Strategic Outreach Committee

1.4. Events Collective

• 1.4a. Flagship Events Committee
• 1.4b. Industry Events Committee
• 1.4c. Community Events Committee

1.5. Spider Collective

• 1.5a. Strategy Coordination Committee
• 1.5b. Talent Acquisition Committee

1.6. Oversight Council

• 1.6a. Scope & Members
• 1.6b. Powers & Enforcement

1.7. Disputes Council

• 1.7a. Scope & Boards
• 1.7b. Powers & Enforcement

1.8. Regulatory Council

• 1.8a. Purpose & Members
• 1.8b. Powers & Reporting

2. Elections, Appointments, Approvals, Impeachments, and Removals.

The purpose of this segment is to outline onboarding & offboarding procedures for various roles & members in the DAO and account for potential needs to remove members from their posts.

2.1. On-Chain Elections

• 2.1a. Election Schedules
• 2.1b. Declaring Candidacy
• 2.1c. Special Elections
• 2.1d. Dynamic Candidacy
• 2.1e. Onboarding & Off-Boarding

2.2. Appointments & Approvals

• 2.2a. Appointment Types
• 2.2b. Appointment Fulfillment
• 2.2c. Approval Processes

2.3. Impeachments & Removals

• 2.3a. Causes for Removal
• 2.3b. Impeachment Process
• 2.3c. Removal Proceedings

3. The Treasury, Tracks, Revenue, Diversification, Budgeting, and Payouts.

The purpose of this segment is to establish organized, transparent, and organized spending practices for the DAO.

3.1 Treasury Structure

• 3.1a. Public Spending Tracks
• 3.1b. Proposal Requirements

3.2 Monetary System

• 3.2a. Treasury Revenue
• 3.2b. Asset Diversification

3.3 Budgeting Procedures

• 3.3a. Budgeting Frequency
• 3.3b. Composition & Deadlines
• 3.3c. Budget Enactments

[ZouYang]

As the founder of the Polkadot ecology research institute, I strongly support the creation of such a framework. I think the development of on-chain governance in the future will definitely move towards something similar to real world governance. As for some of the current governance chaos in Polkadot, I believe that in addition to the governance framework mentioned in this article, there needs to be some clearer policy or strategic plan to guide governance forward. Because the governance framework of this paper focuses on the establishment of a system similar to that of the US general election, Polkadot’s governance also needs what policies will be adopted after the election of various actors to solve the current problems in Polkadot.

[mister_cole]

In theory, this makes a ton of sense, but how many committed, reliable, knowledgeable, and available people would it take? We already see bounty curation consolidating around a small handful of ecosystem agents, many of whom curate multiple bounties. The more responsibility these committees have, the more time- and effort-consuming they will be, and the kind of people qualified to perform these roles are few and far between (and busy with other projects, in many cases).

I like this idea, but it’s aspirational more than practicable, at least in the near term.

[ZouYang]

Yes, it takes a lot of time to iterate, but I think it’s possible to form a preliminary framework first and then evolve into a more complex version.

[lilymendzdev]

Chaos can arise at any moment in any government due to a lack of planning or organization, especially when everything is new. As you mentioned, we need to start having these types of conversations to achieve the organization of OpenGov.

As a community, we must establish a plan with specific and achievable objectives, set the time to achieve them, and make efforts to get more people involved. We should organize, optimize, and simplify the tasks, steps, or resources necessary to reach the final objective.

We need to be clear about what we want to achieve and what we need to achieve it. Understand that within these two questions, there are many others.

So, the first and most important thing is to get more community members involved in the conversation and motivate their communities to do the same. If we want a truly decentralized OpenGov, it must involve more than just a few people making the decisions.

Next, conduct a consultation, just a consultation, to see if the community wants to start developing a series of proposals to establish the organization of OpenGov.

We should establish working groups with committed and enthusiastic people from Polkadot who can dedicate a few hours a week. It is very important that if a reward is to be offered for this, we consider, as is logical, that this would be hard work, and everyone who works should receive a reward for it. So, perhaps there could be a possibility that each month they request a bounty for the work done (they should keep a clear and accessible agenda for everyone to consult on what they have done during the month). Also, preferably, these should be people not already involved in other positions, as they may not perform as well, or it could create a conflict of interest, which leads me to the next point.

Who will be the mediators of all this, the people forming these working groups? As mentioned above, there are talented and dedicated people in Polkadot who already occupy several positions. I think it’s time for other actors in the ecosystem to get involved (I see no problem with this, as they will only be mediators between what is proposed and the community). They could be removed if they are not meeting objectives or if there is evidence of malicious conduct. Perhaps a mentor could be designated as well. Again, each point of this needs to be carefully structured.

I think I’ve extended quite a bit here already. This is a very interesting conversation, and I hope there will be many more and that it can escalate.