Hello all,
I will reply to some of the points raised in the comments by @_JoJo @jengajojo @SEEDGov .
@justErik will have some of his own comments later.
- The big picture view.
To clarify, the intention of these principles was to fall somewhere in-between a full constitution and a Code of Conduct (CoC).
A constitution would be binding for all delegates, while the principles are opt-in, and so can be more flexible. I know that there’s some hesitation to formalize a constitution of Uniswap DAO at this point. For one, the regulatory environment is still very unclear.
As for CoC, it typically is a kind of bare minimum. There is an already existing Delegate Code of Conduct, which is an opt-in. Our intention was not to fully replace it. (Although seeing there’s quite a bit of overlap, so it can be debated.) Additionally, the governance forum already has some means of flagging and remove spam messages or personal insults. The principles are meant to be something more thought-provoking and specific to the DAO, not just “don’t spam in the forum”, which goes without saying.
- Specific additions.
I’m of the view that it’s important not to ask too much from the delegates. (We’re open to removing points from the proposed list of principles as well, if that wasn’t clear!) If we put too many “nice to have” things in there, not only the principles will be harder to understand, remember, and follow. There will be low compliance, which means that any enforcement will be selective at best. I have seen something like that happening in one of my professional affiliations. Selective enforcement (where no-one is fully complying, but only a few are called out for it) is worse than no enforcement.
Proposed additions one by one:
-
Delegates should analyse each proposal professionally, without falling into superficial analysis or voting according to majority sentiment, and in this regard should provide constructive feedback to third party proposals, asking questions to resolve unclear or doubtful questions.
- Would not support, as it’s hard to define what professional analysis means, and not every proposal is within the expertise of every delegate. It’s also not an established practice for every delegate to leave feedback on every third party proposal.
-
Delegates should inform the community if they consider that a proposal is superficial, light, unclear or unsubstantiated and needs to be improved or deepened before it is submitted to a vote.
- Don’t disagree! This could be named something like “Public Feedback” and added to the list.
-
Delegates must not become cartelised and must protect the protocol from other delegates who make proposals only for personal gain but which do not serve the protocol.
- I feel this is already somewhat covered by the “Decentralization” and “Disclosure” principles - maybe you can propose changes in those instead of introducing a new one?
-
Delegates should answer questions and queries that may be raised about their own proposals as fully as possible in a clear and reasoned manner, and be prepared to improve, expand or modify them in response to feedback or questions received, without becoming defensive or offensive in response to questions or queries that may arise.
- This partially overlaps with Representation, Accountability and Legibility principles. Additionally, I think it should not be a requirement that the delegates improve, expand or modify their proposals based on feedback. If a proposal is not satisfactory, the other delegates can simply vote against it. I’d suggest adding something like “should answer questions and queries that may be raised about their own proposals as fully as possible in a clear and reasoned manner” to an existing principle.
-
Delegates should always show respect for others, accept opposing views and avoid personal attacks.
- This is already covered by the existing CoC and seems more like a politeness thing.
-
Delegates should commit to continuous learning about the protocol, its developments, and the wider blockchain ecosystem. They should stay up to date on relevant technological, legal, and economic trends that could impact governance decisions.
- This may be too much to ask especially if we want broad and robust participation in the governance. While it would be great if every delegate was an expert in the protocol and topics surrounding it, it’s important to attract not just the professional delegates, but also aligned actors (like developers, LPs, researchers). The latter may not be full-time delegates, but can still make the governance more robust against malicious proposals.
-
Delegates should prioritize the long-term sustainability of the protocol over short-term gains.
- This was one of the principles that was in the initial list but did not make the final cut. The reason was that it’s hard to quantify what long-term focus means. That said, I do like this principle and if there’s more support, I’m open to reintroducing it.
-
Delegates should aim to work collaboratively with other delegates, even when disagreeing on specific issues.
- Don’t agree that this should be a requirement. What if there are two delegates with two different plans? Should the DAO force them to compromise and collaborate? Moreover, what if someone believes another delegate is malicious, and collaborating with them would be bad for the DAO?
Please keep the comments coming!