Proposal: Amendment to the DAO Governance Constitution - Roundtable Voting

General
,
1

K9 Finance DAO Proposal: Amendment to Roundtable of Dogs Voting Process

(1) Introduction and Objective

This proposal seeks to amend the K9 Finance DAO Constitution to clarify and update the voting process within the Roundtable of Dogs. The current wording leaves room for interpretation, potentially leading to confusion and inconsistencies in decision-making. The objective of this amendment is to establish a clear, unambiguous voting process that ensures strong support for decisions made by the Roundtable.

(2) Benefits to K9 Finance Community

• Clarity and Consistency: The proposed change will provide a clear and consistent rule for all Roundtable votes, eliminating ambiguity.

• Stronger Decisions: By requiring a minimum 75% approval of 75% quorum (approval of at least 56.25% of all Roundtable members), decisions will have demonstrable strong support from the Roundtable.

• Efficiency: The proposed change removes the need for tie-breakers, streamlining the voting process.

• Flexibility: Makes it irrelevant if the Roundatble has an even, or an odd number of members.

• Comprehensive Governance: The clarified wording explicitly covers all decisions entrusted to the Roundtable, not just forum proposals.

(3) Proposal Details

(a) WHAT:

The proposal is to amend the section of the K9 Finance DAO Constitution concerning the “Roundtable of Dogs” to clarify the voting process.

(b) WHO:

This proposal directly impacts the Roundtable of Dogs, as it changes their voting procedures. The entire K9 Finance DAO community is also impacted as the Roundtable makes key decisions on behalf of the DAO.

(c) WHERE:

This amendment applies to the K9 Finance DAO Constitution, specifically within the “Core Committees” section, under the “Roundtable of Dogs” subsection.

(d) WHEN:

This amendment, if approved, would take effect immediately upon the completion of a successful Snapshot vote.

(e) HOW:

The amendment requires a change to the existing text of the Constitution. The specific change is as follows:

Original Text:

Core Committees

…

Roundtable of Dogs: The Roundtable of Dogs, composed of elected members, convenes monthly to review and advance proposals for community consideration. Operating autonomously from the management council, it ensures independent decision-making. Comprising 9 to 19 members, each a subject matter expert in their domain, the Roundtable brings invaluable experience, connections, and guidance for the benefit of the entire K9 Finance DAO community. The Roundtable meets a minimum of once a month to review forum proposals and elevate valid ones to the Snapshot process. Proposals approved by the Roundtable require a 75% quorum approval to proceed to Snapshot.

…

Proposed Text:

Core Committees

…

Roundtable of Dogs: The Roundtable of Dogs, composed of elected members, convenes monthly to review and advance proposals for community consideration. Operating autonomously from the management council, it ensures independent decision-making. Comprising 9 to 19 members, each a subject matter expert in their domain, the Roundtable brings invaluable experience, connections, and guidance for the benefit of the entire K9 Finance DAO community. The Roundtable meets a minimum of once a month to review forum proposals and elevate valid ones to the Snapshot process as well as votes on decisions entrusted to it by the DAO Constitution and Governance docs. Decisions/proposals approved by the Roundtable require a minimum 75% vote in favour by 75% quorum to proceed to Snapshot or execution (depending on the matter voted on).

…

(4) Impact Assessment

• Short-Term Impacts: The immediate impact will be a clearer and more stringent voting process within the Roundtable of Dogs. This may initially require some adjustment for Roundtable members, but it should quickly lead to more decisive outcomes.

• Long-Term Impacts: The long-term impact will be increased confidence in the decisions made by the Roundtable, as they will demonstrably have strong support. This can lead to greater community trust in the DAO’s governance.

• Risks and Mitigation: There is minimal risk associated with this proposal. It primarily clarifies existing procedures. One potential risk is that it might make it slightly harder to pass proposals if consensus is difficult to achieve. However, the requirement for strong support (at least 56.25% of all members) is seen as a positive trade-off.

• Metrics for Success: The success of this proposal can be measured by: (1) Clear and unambiguous voting outcomes in Roundtable meetings. (2) Increased community confidence in Roundtable decisions, as evidenced by forum discussions and sentiment analysis. (3) Efficient decision-making without tie-breakers.

By No One (with preparation support of K9 Proposal Bot)

4 Likes
2

Since we are on the topic of voting, may I request to add more time for the stakeholders to vote on proposals brought forth? I have a missed at least one voting session because I was just 2 days short. Can we extend the time to a certain amount of business days?

1 Like
3

Has there been a problem the decisiveness of a vote?
How many tie breakers have we had?

1 Like
4

Do you mean the snapshot voting i.e. general DAO vote?

I don’t believe this is spelled out in the DAO Constitution itself.
So we do not need to change anything in Constitution in this regard.

It’s mentioned in the guidelines that we have 5 days to vote.

It seems a reasonable time frame to me and a good balance between agility of decision-making and allowing most people to have a say.

We’d really need a big support of holders for this number to be changed.

You can try making a separate proposal to see how people feel about it.

1 Like
5

Generally speaking most of the votes get majority support. We hit our first tie breaker last meeting and so this proposal was born.

In principle - according to current interpretation of the Constitution we need 75% of Roundtable to reach the quorum and then a majority vote. Which means that at least 51% in favour out of 75% of Roundtable - meaning only 38.25% support of all Roundtable members is required to pass something.

This in my opinion is rather low and good decisions should have at least 51% support of all Roundtable members.

Plus if we have a tie - it already means that decision is not clear-cut and the benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks by a clear margin. In such cases I would prefer to err on the side of caution and treat draws as a ‘no’ vote because it’s not positive enough.

Thus the idea of 75% support of 75% members came to be. It makes sure that a decision is clearly positive for the DAO when it is approved and it secured a yes vote from at least 56.25% of total Roundtable members (0.75 x 0.75 = 0.5625).

So far most of the Roundtable votes are already passing with 90-100% support (as per my educated guess - I didn’t keep the individual scores) thus I don’t expect that this change will create extra difficulties in decision-making. But it will ensure that decisions that are passed have strong positive benefit for the DAO far outweighing the negatives and a strong Roundtable support.

That is my thinking at least.

3 Likes
6

My question was around round table voting…sorry if I was vague

2 Likes
7

I can’t see where this would hurt the voting system for the round table. At the least it’s something that can be tested and the Implementation made.

1 Like
8

You’re good. That was reply to RyanCayon’s question about extending voting time.

1 Like
9

I support this change for voting clarity.

Sorry if i missed this, but was the issue resolved or does it need to be amended in this proposal about the emergency voting by the round table?

Last issue was the voting by SHIB community which was on a time line before the next meeting for the round table of dogs.

1 Like
10

I support this change and think it reflects the original intent of the language in the constitution. Good clarification though and should go to vote.

3 Likes
11

I support this vote. 2 questions to clarify: can we propose that the Secretary leads meetings on rare absencs of Chairman? 3 missed allowed/year like other members. Would give some flexibility, but I guess we could always change schedules to accommodate.

I think this is implied, but would this require a re-vote of current Chair & Sec. or are they grandfathered in until a certain date?

Very thorough proposal. Nice job!

1 Like
12

Since existing role-holders fulfil all new requirements already - they can continue serving the remainder of their original term which runs out in a month or two anyway (if I am not mistaken).

The Secretary already establishes the agenda for the meeting and basically leads the meetings.
The Chairman is the one delivering the report about the latest news from the Management Council.

It is unlikely that both would be absent since they determine the date for the meeting in advance (unless there is an emergency - then it can be rescheduled or proceed with limited agenda if there is an urgent proposal that cannot wait for a review).

2 Likes
13

Just to clarify, I meant the statement below. Would there be any flexibility allowed for the Secretary & Chairman to fill in for each other for rare absences? For example, in the case of a ln extended illness? Would hate for important business matters to wait on a return or a full vote for interim.

“The Chairman has mandatory attendance at the Management Council meetings.”

1 Like
14

This touches on ‘Management Council’ - not Roundtable.
If the Secretary is informed of the comings and goings of Management Council - they could present the information to the Roundtable instead.
Plus we have an option to get a temporary Chair or Secretary in those emergency situations (if proposal with that addition is passed).
So we should be covered as far as I can see.

1 Like