please clarify/expand … without details its hard to determine whether it is
a) structural
b) procedural
c) accountable (lines of reporting)
If it is a sensitive matter, we (as in LexDAO) can set up an anonymous process to protect whistle-blowers by giving authorNyms. However, without substantive evidence, it can easily degenerate into slander
Discussions (ongoing) to improve governance (not exhaustive)
- structural = thoughts to onboard more developer-oriented delegates … this tries to overcome fact that all IP is controlled by Uniswap Labs so fostering adjacent/vertical IP broadens participation;
- procedural = suggestion to use a open tender process for simple procurements - this separates the how from who-what on non-discriminatory basis;
- accountable = various dashboards as UF grantees (which also benefit forks) - I’ve made various suggestions on whistle-blowing and independent investigations