Should the Community Trust governance begin in “Guardrail Mode”, with six-week proposal cycles? During the fifth such cycle, the HOPR Association would create a proposal to leave Guardrail mode.
Guardrail mode would be a 30-week long initiative to try out the governance processes in a more constrained fashion. Governance would proceed in six week cycles. Proposals could only be posted during the first week of each such cycle (proposal ideation could of course proceed at any time, ready for the next cycle).
The rationale would be to try out the new processes in a more rigid format to reduce proposal noise. SafeDAO are doing something similar, and we feel it’s a good bridge between HOPR Association-directed governance experiments and a fully open, decentralized setup.
In particular, we feel this would be a good way to test out the new bond and audit systems with more leeway for teething problems and delays.
Overall, implementing a Guardrail Mode is a practical approach to testing and fine-tuning the new governance framework before full decentralization. By listening to community input and maintaining transparency, we can ensure a successful transition that aligns with the community’s needs and expectations.Thanks
I think the main con is that it’s even slower than the proposed processes. While I support this slow pace (or I wouldn’t have proposed it), it’s possible it increases the need for some kind of emergency processes.
sounds reasonable.
why limit to 30 weeks? what if the mentioned proposal during the fifth week wouldn’t pass? couldn’t “guardrail mode” just be left whenever such a proposal is accepted?