ICCP-10

IMPLEMENTED

Simple Summary

To expedite and clarify the progression of IIPs and ICCPs through the various council levels, this proposal suggests introducing a "sponsor" role for each proposal. The sponsor would have the authority to ensure that the original intent of the proposal is maintained throughout the deliberation process. Having a sponsor allows councils to edit the proposal as it makes its way through the levels. This proposal also states a clarified proposal flow process. The proposal aims to make the process more clear, allow amending throughout the process, and maintain the integrity of the original objectives.

Abstract

This ICCP proposes a "sponsor" system within the governance structure. Sponsors, often the proposal authors, maintain the proposal's original intent throughout council discussions and amendments. They retain veto rights over the submitted versions following Specialized council review if the proposal deviates significantly from its original intention. This proposal also establishes clear timelines for each step and introduces a mechanism for the Community Sub-Council to select the Specialized Sub-Council for each proposal.

Overview

Governance Structure Changes

1. Each IIP and ICCP will have a designated “sponsor” who is responsible for maintaining the proposal's original intent.Noted at the bottom of the proposal as shown on this document. A council can draft a proposal together, but there must be one sponsor that has final say.
2. The Community Sub-Council will choose one Specialized Sub-Council for the proposal to pass to.
3. The sponsor has the authority to veto the approved version from the specialized council if it deviates significantly from the original intention.The sponsor has a 3-day window to make a decision. The Specialized Sub-Council will post the updated proposal draft in the original Governance Forum thread after successfully voting on the proposal, tagging the sponsor. Sponsor then must write if they approve the proposal at this stage, tagging the responsible specialized council. If they object, they must provide reasoning and action items to make it in line with the original intent. The sponsor is allowed to veto once each time a proposal moves to the IMC. If the sponsor does not voice an opinion it will be assumed approved and move to the IMC. It's strongly recommended for all council levels to liaise with the sponsor throughout the process to avoid any discrepancies that might require the process to be started anew.
4. The Illuvinati Main Council(IMC) will now be provided 3 options when voting in snapshot: Approved Rejected Revisions Needed If the IMC majority votes “Rejected”, the proposal will be considered Rejected. If members vote “pending amendments” they must also provide suggested changes in the reasoning field within the snapshot. The proposal will go back to the Specialized council for possible amending. The specialized council can decide to reject it at this phase or re-submit back to the sponsor with edits. The IMC can send it back for edits 3 times cumulatively then it is considered rejected. Tiebreakers will always flow back to be revised if there are edits remaining.
5. Timelines: In an effort to make the proposal process more clear to the DAO, timelines will be established for each stage. Snapshot votes should start promptly when the prior stage is concluded: Governance Forum Stage: 14 days to gather 25 Upvotes Community Sub Council Vote: 3 days(Edits can/should be planned during the Governance Forum Stage) Specialized Sub Council Vote: 3 days Sponsor Review Stage: 3 days Illuvinati Main Council Vote: 3 days A stage can be expedited based on the following conditions: Stage 1: Reaching the 25 upvotes before the 14 days will activate the 3 day vote window on snapshot for Stage 2. Voting: Once all sub-council members have cast a vote, the proposal will move to the next stage. Stage 4: As soon as the Sponsor states their official response the next stage will start.
6. Timeline extensions: Extensions can be requested at any stage(Excluding stage 1) within the first 24 hours of the prior stage. The responsible party may request up to a 30 day extension. This should only be used in extreme situations. A typical extension should be 7-14 days. Rational must be provided publicly within the original Governance forum post as to why the extension is required.

Should it appear that a council is abusing the extension policy, a council member can initiate a vote with new requirements on the extension privileges for the abusing council. If the majority of IMC members agree, the abusing council must follow the new requirements. This could span a short reduction from the 30 day max or it could completely eliminate the ability to extend.

Rationale

The current governance structure is a work in progress and can be clearer when it comes to processing and amending proposals. By incorporating sponsors into the process, the procedure can be expedited while ensuring the proposal's original intent is preserved. This amendment encourages closer collaboration among council levels and the sponsor, further streamlining the decision-making process. It provides a solution that maintains the democratic nature of the process while significantly enhancing its efficiency.