Skip to content

Formal Pathway for DAO Request for Information (RFI) from the Decentraland Foundation

PassedPoll

Proposal Details

Author0x76fb…7cb0
PublishedMar 09, 2023 05:07
Voting beginsMar 09, 2023 05:07
Voting endsMar 14, 2023 05:07
Snapshot#0485045

Description

**Abstract** This proposal has two primary objectives: 1. Implement a formal pathway for the DAO to issue a “request for information” (RFI) from the Decentraland Foundation. 2. Facilitate Decentraland Foundation response to Binding Governance Proposals for feature requests, in the interim period until a Feature Request Category can be formally approved and integrated into the DAO’s governance dApp. The first objective is a new initiative. The second builds on a clause included in the recently passed Governance Proposal delegating responsibility for determining and implementing the Reference Client Roadmap to the Decentraland Foundation **Background** Decentraland is a progressively decentralizing ecosystem, managed by two core stakeholders: the Decentraland DAO and the Decentraland Foundation. While both of these entities are themselves made up of a diverse and multi-interested group of stakeholders, a cooperative and structured institutional relationship between the DAO and the Foundation is beneficial, if not necessary to the success of our metaversal “way of life.” The most important proposal to date outlining a formal relationship between the DAO and the Foundation was recently passed as a Binding Governance Proposal, delegating responsibility for determining and implementing the [“reference client roadmap”](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=38cf5bb0-c322-11eb-ac84-1705d1ae4a66) to the Decentraland Foundation.” In the reference client proposal, the Decentraland Foundation notes two key points: First, “The DAO will have a clear path to contribute ideas and requests to the roadmap. This could take the form of a new polling category within the DAO, specific to client feature requests and suggestions. These proposals could then be voted on by the community, with accepted suggestions being passed to the Foundation for inclusion in the next iteration of the product roadmap.” Second, “The project is currently in a state of asymmetry in terms of context/resources/contributions between the Foundation and the community.” The specification below addresses each point. **Specification** In the context of these points above, this proposal calls for the following, which if supported by the Decentraland Community, will be explored in more detail and outlined further in a Draft Proposal: 1. Establish a formal pathway for the DAO to issue a “Request for Information” (RFI) from the Decentraland Foundation via the DAO’s governance dApp. A DAO RFI can be on any topic of interest or concern, and if passed, will require a formal statement of response from the Decentraland Foundation. While any response to an RFI will most likely be non-binding, this is an important mechanism for the DAO to communicate its interests and alleviate information “asymmetry” between the Foundation and the Community. 2. In the interim period between now and when a formal feature request pathway is approved and implemented in the governance dApp, this proposal calls on the Decentraland Foundation to issue a response to a Binding Governance Proposal feature request, indicating a timeline for their implementation of the feature, either integrating it into the existing product roadmap, or including it in the next iteration of the product roadmap - *as stated in the Governance Proposal delegating client roadmap responsibility to the Foundation*. This is a stop gap measure to ensure that the community has a voice in Decentraland's product development via Binding Governance Proposals, until a formal pathway for feature requests has been established. **Voting Options** There will be four voting options for this Pre-Proposal Poll, to ensure an accurate signal of community perceptions is captured. - First, a vote for ONLY the "RFI Pathway" - Second, a vote for ONLY the "Interim Feature Request Response Pathway" - Third, a vote in favor of BOTH of the above pathways - Four, a vote against the proposal in general

Voting Rationale

0x3670…c15BNo, Vote against Promoting to Draft Proposal0

0.025

8 Comments

daoMar 14, 2023

Formal Pathway for DAO Request for Information (RFI) from the Decentraland Foundation This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

daoMar 14, 2023

Formal Pathway for DAO Request for Information (RFI) from the Decentraland Foundation This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes, vote in favor of rfi pathway (only) 1% 2,576 VP (104 votes) * Yes, vote in favor of interim feature request response pathway only 1% 1 VP (8 votes) * Yes, vote in favor of both rfi & feature request response pathways 67% 596,906 VP (58 votes) * No, vote against promoting to draft proposal 31% 270,009 VP (18 votes) * Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

FehzMar 13, 2023

@esteban EssentiaIly, I can imagine RFIs asking about technical details (technology, protocols, etc), deep dives into the roadmap/manifesto, timelines for specific feature releases, and follow ups on Binding Governance Proposals implementations in the platform. Complementary to technical AMAs, but giving the time for more specific and complex Q&As. It would probably be a good idea to define some categories, but trying not to be limiting.

estebanMar 11, 2023

@Fehz @Matimio I'd like to see some examples of what kinds of RFI could be executed. [quote="CheddarQueso, post:6, topic:18382, full:true"] I remember the community largely asking to see the roadmap… did the foundation ever respond to those requests? [/quote] It looks like they called it "Manifesto" instead of roadmap: https://decentraland.org/blog/announcements/decentraland-2023-manifesto-year-of-the-creators/

CheddarQuesoMar 11, 2023

I remember the community largely asking to see the roadmap.. did the foundation ever respond to those requests?

FehzMar 09, 2023

Totally agree with this. We’ve also considered it. The thing is: what would happen or what would be the “consequences” if the Foundation does not meet the due date?

louiseMar 09, 2023

I think this is a good idea, it might be worth including a time limit at which the response is required.

web3nitMar 09, 2023

Thank you for this proposal, DAO lacks communication with Foundation and I hope it will help to solve this issue.