Hi everyone! Thank you so much for commenting this actively in the proposal. This really helps us understand the importance of working on processes before people involved in them. Your insights and comments will be taken into account, and we'll be uploading a new proposal with these changes in a few days.

Good call.. I agree with adding a **requirement** for the committee to hear the grantee before deciding, giving the grantee a limited amount of time to respond. :+1:

Framework for New Committee who decides when to revoke grants This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 33% 544,457 VP (32 votes) * No 67% 1,089,043 VP (53 votes)

@dax Right on, thanks for taking the time to chat about this. At what point will these action plans be available to the community? Is clarifying these elements part of the next step between this draft and the final proposal? If there's any opportunity to participate or be of any help, especially with the technical writing aspects, please don't hesitate to reach out 😊

The more land or mana you have, the louder the vote. Same as the real world. So I vote yes

[quote="Mimsy, post:30, topic:16339"] I definitely agree that this *should* be the understanding, but I find that the current language used around meeting with the grant support squad and some other expectations for grantees also leaves room for interpretation on what is reccommended and what is required with consequence for failure to do so, even if the *expectation* may seem clear. This is why I feel it’s so important to use explicit language in this proposal. [/quote] Yep, makes sense, and I agree with you. There should be a protocol which is followed in what I should think will be the relatively rare cases where the revocation committee is called to act. [quote="Mimsy, post:30, topic:16339"] This way, the community members can be on the same page about the steps that will be taken to protect the DAO funds, the opportunities given to the grantee to defend themselves, and the measures in place to ensure transparency in each possible scenario that could reasonably be anticipated. [/quote] Definitely! one thing that i talked about with @Zino and @yararasita is that while we will not be able to anticipate all the possible scenarios (our experience so far has shown us this, it's why we're here in the first place as this largely is stemming from the DG 1 million USD grant), one of the goals of this initial committee is to (1) identify as many of these scenarios as possible and (2) organize a structure and format of what "good" and "bad" grant scenarios looks like and how we respond to them as a community. One concrete example of this is "What are red flags that would trigger an investigation / possibility of revocation?" Certainly one of those is lack of communication, but there are unknown unknowns here that only experience can teach, and being organized enough that we are prepared (as a community) to learn those lessons should be a priority.

Hi @dax! Thanks for the response🙂 [quote="dax, post:28, topic:16339"] Re: requirement to talk to the grantee, based on my knowledge of the grant process, the grantee should be relatively accessible within discord and/or via email as in a “normal” working situation they are having at least monthly meetings with the grant support squad. [/quote] I definitely agree that this *should* be the understanding, but I find that the current language used around meeting with the grant support squad and some other expectations for grantees also leaves room for interpretation on what is reccommended and what is required with consequence for failure to do so, even if the *expectation* may seem clear. This is why I feel it's so important to use explicit language in this proposal. [quote="dax, post:28, topic:16339"] I would say that in the case a grant is flagged to be revoked, the grantee must, at least, give a statement in their defense to the revocation committee and can have other meetings as necessary. Generally I think they’d be eager to talk to this committee so I imagine communication between the two won’t be a problem. There is also the unlikely case where the grantee simply doesn’t communicate, but I believe this is one of the use cases of revocation - when a grantee disappears. [/quote] I think it's a great idea to specify in the procedure that the grantee must give a statement in their defense, then maybe outline a series of next actions based on accepting, not accepting, or not receiving the statement within the designated period alotted. I also like what you suggest about a possible emergency situation- these are the types of things I feel should be anticipated and clearly outlined for each step of the procedure before the final proposal is voted on. This way, the community members can be on the same page about the steps that will be taken to protect the DAO funds, the opportunities given to the grantee to defend themselves, and the measures in place to ensure transparency in each possible scenario that could reasonably be anticipated.

I'm voting no. Community members with active grants should not be selected. - "conflict of interest."

First you're right about the dominance of the discussion. I think it's not wrong but there are also a lot of other things to talk about here. Re: requirement to talk to the grantee, based on my knowledge of the grant process, the grantee should be relatively accessible within discord and/or via email as in a "normal" working situation they are having at least monthly meetings with the grant support squad. I would say that in the case a grant is flagged to be revoked, the grantee must, at least, give a statement in their defense to the revocation committee and can have other meetings as necessary. Generally I think they'd be eager to talk to this committee so I imagine communication between the two won't be a problem. There is also the unlikely case where the grantee simply doesn't communicate, but I believe this is one of the use cases of revocation - when a grantee disappears. Maybe one thing to work out is what happens if it's a single grantee who for whatever reason is out of touch (they got sick, they got lost in mountains, abducted by aliens, etc) - in that case the grant is unable to be fulfilled and it makes sense to me for it to be revoked, but should it simply be paused? what if the grantee is able to complete the work later?

[quote="Matimio, post:21, topic:16339"] I do also want to highlight that this is the second stage of the proposal and there is a third and final binding governance stage that lies ahead. So if you support the idea in general, but have some issues with specifics, a vote yes, does not mean this exact version is what will be passed. [/quote] Thank you for pointing this out. While I agree that the issue of appointing/electing members and holding temporary committee is important, it seems to have really dominated the discussion and I'd like to know a bit more about the language in the procedure section of the proposal. 😅 My main concern is the amount of room left for interpretation in areas of the procedure, and that it does not seem there is a step where the committee is *required* to hear from the grantee. It says: [quote="dao, post:1, topic:16339"] the New Committee has the ability to request further information to the Grant Support Squad or the Grantee about the case presented, not exceeding 30 days. After that, the Grant Revocation Committee has five (5) days to publish the final resolution. [/quote] While I would assume the intention is to hear from both parties, it leaves the window open to have a complaint submitted, evaluated, and resolved without any information or involvment other than the initial "response" from the grantee. Is there another time/place/manner where this will be available to discuss before the final version is proposed?

Maybe a revoke process?

voted no because this could be tricky either way. Even though it may be needed it would add a centralized group making decisions over grants outside of the foundation, and could have biases with both having a preset team or having people voted into these positions.

**I must vote no, a comitee should not be appointed** Should not be appointed or elected.. Should be voted by the community! This proposal already has appointed a small group of people which can be very bias. [Gino Cingolani](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ginocingolani/): Product Lead DAO governance App [Nathalie Nuñez](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathalie-nunez-38143418/): Member of the DAO Facilitation Squad [Nacho Mazzara](https://www.linkedin.com/in/imazzara/): Engineer Manager Decentraland Foundation Dax: Decentraland DAO Backend Developer Mattimus: Software Engineer - DAO Committee Substitutes: [Yemel Jardi: ](https://www.linkedin.com/in/yemel/)Software Engineer - DAO Committee [Nikki Fuego](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nikki-fuego-58a83b249/): 3D Artist and Game Maker for Decentraland DAO

Well... took me a while to get here.. had to go back and read the previous proposals and catch up. I would have voted to have the DAO committee decide instead of creating a new committee but that ship has sailed... I agree with @Seanny that we should establish the framework first and then elect the committee. I also agree that the committee should be elected through an open process. Since we already have a framework based on the success of other committees, it shouldn't be too painful of a process. In the meantime.. Is there a reason why the DAO committee can't continue to revoke grants based on the recommendation of the Grant Support Squad until the selection process for the new committee takes its course? If the two processes were segregated I would be ok with supporting this proposal... unless anyone has any better ideas. PS: I enjoyed reading the proposals as well as all your comments, even if I don't agree with the results, it is good to see how we openly work thru these pain points. Happy to take part.

Great discussion happening here, I've been synching with multiple members of the community during the day to understand their perspectives but since I'm one of the candidates proposed I wanted to state my stance publicly: First of all, I truly believe this is the right path toward decentralization. At the moment the Grant Support Squad is doing this work and the DAO Committee is executing based on their recommendations but there is no process nor transparency about it. This has already caused some issues in the community and by providing transparency and accountability (i.e. public votes, community calls, and financial incentives) we are already improving the current situation. Having said that, I agree with @Seanny that voting members and processes on the same proposal might be risky and could be setting a bad precedent for the future. Even though this is how the DAO Committee and the Wearables Curation Committee started, I feel the community is having more mature conversations and this is something we should encourage. I do like the idea of proposing an initial committee that could serve for a shorter time period (than the 12 months defined on the proposal), let's say 6 months, to start rolling the ball since this is a pressing issue. Also, I feel that 6 months is more than enough to figure out the specificities of adding/removing members. There is a good reference defined and voted on in [this proposal](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=359eee30-cacc-11ec-90c9-11bf3c6f4ca1) (Adding/removing DAO Committee members) and I believe we should revise it to see if it fits with this committee or propose a new one via a working group. I also commit resources from the DAO Governance Squad to prioritize and execute any changes needed in order to support whatever the community decides regarding the mechanisms for adding/removing (i.e. A specific voting strategy, another snapshot space, shielded voting, etc.) As conclusion: I won't vote on the proposal in its current state I suggest publishing two Draft proposals linked to the original poll, one defining the mechanisms and the second one proposing an initial executive team for the committee. Thanks, @yararasita, @Zino and @palewin for this!

Simply flagging this proposal for discussion in our upcoming town hall. I think there are some great discussions happening here. I do also want to highlight that this is the second stage of the proposal and there is a third and final binding governance stage that lies ahead. So if you support the idea in general, but have some issues with specifics, a vote yes, does not mean this exact version is what will be passed. That said, If there is wide enough dissent to the current form of the proposal, a rework of it at the Draft Stage here, could still be possible in our current framework (I believe...) We need to go back to the text of the original 3 stage proposal or potentially issue a amendment about what happens when a proposal fails on the Draft phase (I do think there should be an opportunity for one revision of the draft proposal, since there is already consensus that the issue needs resolution via passage of the pre-proposal poll.)

Hi everyone! Thank you for your thoughtful inputs and comments. It is always good to see how the ideas evolve, and leverage the processes. There are recurrent comments regarding why this proposal is adding 5 temporary members, and why 6 months, so I’d like to share with your our logic behind this idea: **Why a proposal with temporary members:** This is a first step towards decentralizing our role. Today we are the ones raising concerns and creating a recommendation to the DAO committee if a grant has to be revoked, and later this committee executes if they agree or disagree with our recommendations. What we want is to decentralize this current process, proposing 5 temporary candidates until we can put together the path towards creating the elected committee by the DAO. If we do not do this, we are still accountable for revocation recommendations, and we think it is unfair to be the ones “creating the case” and “judging”. To decide if a new committee member should join, we created this proposal with the idea of taking this step towards decentralization today and being able to address the framework in a long-term. That’s why the creation of this framework includes this temporary committee. I understand you @seanny that it is important to avoid mixing two separate processes, but this is the reason behind why we did it like this. We trusted that following the paths already taken would allow this process to move forward like this. **Why 6 months of a temporary committee:** We defined 6 months, as it is good timing to follow the path that the community has previously done successfully, and building on those previous steps. **This is really important because we’d like to build on what the community has already thought and not reinvent the whole process.** Responding to @seanny, we are being as careful as we can with studying previous governance mechanisms and following them, and reinforcing the standard governance practices that other committees had done before us. (1 week) Pre-proposal poll First we need to create a poll to Establish a Formal Process for Adding/Removing Committee Members. We have already [drafted one](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FRixbE21B6616ioutH7eC1g7fKO0J5AxU0-bHn91xko/edit) following the [example](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=782bbe80-9adf-11ec-831d-95af4f79cd2a) from the procedure to become DAO Committee Members. (1 week) Draft proposal Then we need to draft a proposal to add or remove committee members, taking the community inputs into account. We’d like to follow the example of the Draft Proposal that had successfully passed by community members already on [how to establish a formal Process for Adding/Removing DAO Committee Members](https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=5fd09520-ae73-11ec-87a7-6d2a41508231). (2 weeks) governance proposal Then we need to go over a governance proposal. We’d like to follow the example of the Draft Proposal that had successfully passed by community members already on [how to establish a formal Process for Adding/Removing DAO Committee] (https://governance.decentraland.org/proposal/?id=359eee30-cacc-11ec-90c9-11bf3c6f4ca1) And if we are consequent to what we have learned and done in the past as a community, then we would be able to open a procedure that would look more or less to something like the following, based on the DAO Committee procedure to add members: (2 weeks) Open application period (@ArtReYou here us where the “job advertisement” would be in place) Applications are submitted as posts on the forum, applicants should answer pertinent questions. (4 weeks) Committee Interviews We will ask the community how to address these on the previous governance steps. (2 weeks) Final community vote After the interview phase, the Grants Support Squad would be responsible for creating a final proposal in the DAO listing their picks for the top 5 candidates. This is the reason why we thought of 6 months instead of a shorter term. We know how much time it takes to think about all the inputs from the community to draft thoughtful proposals, and we want to be as kind as we can with the times of the people behind this process. I hope these comments illustrate the spirit behind this framework based on the previously learned of the community, and why includes these five temporary members. Best, Zino

[quote="HPrivakos, post:13, topic:16339, full:true"] This is a perfect example of why temporary committees are not a good idea. There is a 6 months time frame being set, but then the debate will last way longer than that on how to correctly run that new elections, who and how nominate people, etc… [/quote] Can you elaborate on this? The long lasting time frame seems to be an argument FOR a temporary committee, otherwise this will take just as long to enact as it will to find a committee.

This committee is appointed to vote on the final result of a revocation case. The committee is not necessarily responsible for reporting the cases or blindly deciding to revoke. The "procedure" section in the document begins with a formal request by ANY community member. Everyone is still able to provide their own evidence and arguments as a community, with regards to any grant request, and the committee will take all of that into account and make the decision with clear and public arguments. The main thing changing in this regard, is there will be a public request form. Currently, a community member would have to message a support squad member directly, who then handles the case and judgement themselves.

Creating group of individuals who revoke grants voted by community can make us Centraland. :sneezing_face: Decentraland is community driven, there must be voted delegates at the beginning and not after 6 months.

[quote="mattimus, post:12, topic:16339"] @Seanny I agree that it can be seen as bad precedent to combine appointee with committee establishment in a single proposal. If this proposal is split into 2, but with the same temporary committee as appointees, would that be sufficient to preserve precedent, while still allowing the temporary committee, assuming the community approves of the temporary personnel? [/quote] Totally @mattimus. I would be comfortable supporting that approach. That would allow us to retain momentum, whilst segregating the two processes. It would also give more space for the nominated individuals to be able to better display their expertise/relevant skillsets for the position, which none of you are lacking in!

@mattimus The need for revoking grants is urgent. This can be discussed openly in the DAO discord by more people, not just five members. This is a good step towards making the Dao better but more and more people needs to be a part of it. In this way of only having 5 members, groupism and attachment to people and projects will cause problems for everyone.

I voted no for the reasons above. I'm afraid I don't have good answers as to "how" we best pick committee members, but of all places, the DAO needs to be created with the most decentralized foundation possible. The community needs to decide the members of the committee. @mattimus I like your question about these specific members... I think they are all amazing and if there was the ability to choose committee members, I'd probably vote them all in! To me it's just the principle behind how they (or anyone) is placed in this position. I want the community to have a voice in who is appointed to these and all openings that will have decision making power. Since we have such precious little past history with DAO's, I'm afraid every action we take will set a precedent as we move forward. It's like we're building a house right now (in the DAO). We MUST build a strong foundation first by examining these processes under intense scrutiny. Then the structure we build on top of it will have a better chance of lasting for years, and withstanding the storms that will inevitably come our way.

This is a perfect example of why temporary committees are not a good idea. There is a 6 months time frame being set, but then the debate will last way longer than that on how to correctly run that new elections, who and how nominate people, etc...

@ArtReYou @SinfulMeatStick @Seanny what do you envision a committee election process to look like? I don't believe we can use our standard voting strategies as this would allow the committees to be taken over with whale votes. What does the election process look like? Are there phases? A top 10? 1 account 1 vote? There is a multitude of issues and it's easy to say things should be a certain way but the process to get there is not quick and easy and we should begin these discussions now. Are there any specific members of this temporary committee you see issue with? Would you like more information about how or why each member was selected? Do you have specific individuals in mind already that you would like to see appointed? I was personally approached because I am in the dao site and discord daily, scouring for updates, tracking deliverables, and identifying potential misuse with no affiliation to any existing committee or group. I am here to protect this community and personally review all grants with a very high level of detail, while maintaining an unbiased opinion. I think the support squad put a lot of thought and effort into this proposal as well as selection of the initial committee. @Seanny I agree that it can be seen as bad precedent to combine appointee with committee establishment in a single proposal. If this proposal is split into 2, but with the same temporary committee as appointees, would that be sufficient to preserve precedent, while still allowing the temporary committee, assuming the community approves of the temporary personnel?