Our governance process uses two types of proposals:
ParagonsDAO Improvement Proposals (PDIPs): Put forth to propose a new idea, or significant changes (over and above configurable values) on an existing process, protocol or
ParagonsDAO Configuration Change Proposals (PCCPs): Put forth in order to change configurable values that are outlined in PDIPs.
PDIP and PCCP are intended to be the two primary vehicles for proposing new features, collecting community feedback on large scale issues and for the documentation of all changes made to the ParagonsDAO. The were introduced in PDIP 1 - Introducing a framework for governance structure and record.
Overall Process
Any community member is welcome to author a formal PDIP or PCIP on our Governance Discussion Forum, however, they should first signal some community support and stress-test ideas by discussing the concepts on Discord.
Authors are responsible for owning and requesting all stages of a Proposal until it goes to Paragons Council vote.
Once an author has encouraged high-level discussion and signalled support, Authors should write any PDIP/PCCP in the style and format described below, and reach out to a PDIP Editor for quality control and feasibility review before the Author posts on the Governance Discussion Forum. Once this is done, Authors should also share the link to this discussion in the #General channel on Discord for community awareness.
After the proposal has been on the Governance Discussion Forum for about a week, the Paragons Council will move to vote on the proposal, and coordinate implementation if successful.
Proposal Layout
All proposals should follow the following format:
Preamble: contains the PDIP number, title of the PDIP and champion details
Summary: Provide a simplified and short description of the proposal.
Abstract: a short description outlining clearly the issue being addressed
Motivation: this is an optional feature of the proposal is to change the roadmap, vision or DAO setup in any way.
Specification: The specifics and details of the solution or change being proposed against the Abstract
Rationale: a detailed analytical view for the reasons and motivations behind the proposed changes. It should be in line with the “show your working” theme and detail any other possible solutions considered and if there were objections raised before submitting.
Test Cases: Test cases can be added but are not required.
Copyright Waiver: All PDIP’s must be in the public domain. Use the language “Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.”
Graphs and other visual content can also be used in a proposal where required or useful for presentation.
Outcomes and Definition
PDIP Editors will classify proposal stages using these definitions:
Draft - This PDIP is a work in progress, ongoing discussions happening with the Paragons Council member/s and champion/s.
Feasibility - PDIP is assigned to a Core Contributor to undertake a feasibility study
Paragons Council Review Pending - PDIP is being formally reviewed for voting or if more is needed to make a decision.
Vote Pending - PDIP is currently up for vote with Paragons Council (PDIP to follow for Council)
Approved - PDIP has passed
Rejected - PDIP has failed to pass consensus
Implemented - PDIP has been completed as per outlines
PDIP Editor Responsibilities
PDIP Editors are champions of the standard and process within the PDIP framework, while maintaining standards for grammar, spelling and formatting mistakes. They are meant to provide clear and effective communicator between parties, and in their editing duties should not provide judgment on any proposal.
The PDIP Editor assigned to a proposal should:
Read and clarify that the PDIP is worded correctly with changes discussed being made
Ensure Title matches the Proposal outline
Ensure language, grammar, spelling and structure is sound
In the event the PDIP is not complete and is sent back to the author;
Assign clear instructions on the next steps, this could include issues to be addressed before resubmitting, suggested reformatting or additions that need to be made.
