Structured Proposal Format

Governance
1

To streamline the review process for the Big Spender, Medium Spender, and Small Spender tracks on the Polkadot OpenGov platform, it is essential to implement a standardized template that clearly presents all relevant information.

I have developed a preliminary version of this standardized template and would greatly appreciate your feedback, suggestions, and any necessary revisions. If the community supports moving forward with this initiative, we will need to establish a method to ensure that proposers/ref creators adopt and utilize this template consistently.

Thank you for your time and input. Cheers!

Benefits of Using This Structured Template

Enhanced Readability: A standardized format makes it easier to locate and understand key information.

Efficient Evaluation: Reviewers can quickly assess each proposal’s merits by following a consistent structure.

Improved Quality: Proposers are encouraged to think through all aspects of their project, leading to more comprehensive and viable proposals.

Transparency: Clear presentation of funding sources and financial needs builds trust within the community.

Standardized Proposal Template

1. Project Overview

  • Title: (Clear and concise name of the project)
  • Track: (Big Spender, Medium Spender, Small Spender)
  • Submitted By: (Name(s) and contact information of the proposer(s))
  • Submission Date: (Date of proposal submission)

2. Description

  • Summary: (A brief overview highlighting the purpose and significance of the project)
  • Detailed Description: (In-depth explanation, including key features, functionalities, and methodologies)

3. Vision and Goals

  • Vision: (Long-term impact and alignment with Polkadot’s ecosystem)
  • Goals: (Specific, measurable objectives the project aims to achieve)

4. Scope

  • Inclusions: (What the project will cover)
  • Exclusions: (What is intentionally excluded to maintain focus and feasibility)

5. Phase Information

  • Current Phase: (Indicate the current stage, e.g., Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3)
  • Phase Details: (Specific activities and milestones for each phase)

6. Funding Details

  • Requested Funding: (Amount being requested from the treasury)
  • Previous Funding:
    • Amount:
    • Source:
    • Purpose:
  • Seed Rounds:
    • Investors:
    • Amounts:
  • Other Funding Sources: (Grants, partnerships, etc.)

7. Resource Requirements and Costs

  • Human Resources: (Roles and number of team members needed)
  • Technical Resources: (Software, hardware, or other technical needs)
  • Cost Breakdown:
    • Salaries:
    • Equipment:
    • Marketing:
    • Miscellaneous:

8. Scope and Deliverables

  • Tasks: (Specific tasks to be completed)
  • Milestones: (Key milestones with expected completion dates)
  • Deliverables: (Tangible outputs, e.g., software releases, documentation)

9. Outcome Expected

  • Impact: (How the project will benefit the community or ecosystem)
  • Metrics: (Quantitative and qualitative measures to assess success)

10. Next Steps

  • Immediate Actions: (Steps to be taken following proposal approval)
  • Long-term Plans: (Future developments or expansions post-initial phase)

11. Maintenance Costs

  • Ongoing Expenses: (Costs required to maintain and support the project after initial deployment)
  • Sustainability Plan: (How maintenance will be funded in the long term)

12. Risks and Mitigation

  • Potential Risks: (Identify possible challenges or obstacles)
  • Mitigation Strategies: (Plans to address and overcome identified risks)

13. Appendices

  • Supporting Documents: (Additional materials supporting the proposal, e.g., diagrams, charts)
  • Team Credentials: (Brief bios or resumes of key team members)
2 Likes
2

It’s great to see so many pro-active community members, however, there has been extensive work done in the structuring of OpenGov participations and submissions already - and to continue proposing new frameworks / guidelines without cross-referencing the work that has already been done by entities such as OpenGovWatch will only lead to further confusion and ineffective double work.

The best plan of action is to continue building on established parameters that have been accepted by the community and funded through one of the many platforms - OpenGov or W3F so that we can continue a coherent path forward.

J.

2 Likes
3

Thank you for taking the time read and respond. Appreciate the links you shared.

I am not expecting to change the current guidelines being set. I am just relaying my experience when reviewing these proposals and providing some feedback that hopefully if teams start to use them in addition to the current guidelines will help individuals in reviewing the proposals. My hope ia to bring more people (DOT holders) to use their DOT and vote.

Cureent guidelines are great but if there is a standard template it will be easier for individuals to access and vote on the proposals.

Thanks again!

1 Like
4

@D0tSama - again, believe contacting OGW with ideas with what you see could be improvements on existing templates would be the most helpful.

See existing guide:

J

2 Likes
5

Thanks!

1 Like
6

I think these types of documents should be more accessible through Polkassembly or Subsquare. There should be a section for this, as well as other important links.

2 Likes