Proposal

The Olympus council would like to propose several amendments to the original OIP-91, including introducing a re-election framework, reporting requirements, the number of council members, and several miscellaneous improvements.

- The council proposes a 1-year term for elected council members

  • The council will be put up for a vote of confidence, voted on by OHM holders

  • If the vote of confidence passes, the council is elected for a period of 1 year

  • If the vote of confidence fails, an election process will take place to elect a new council

  • The election will be done by DAO contributors above level 4 (full time equivalent). This is an interim solution until we can cement this in an OCG structure. The framework for replacing council members during this term remain unchanged (see OIP-91)

- The council proposes formalizing the reporting requirements by the council

  • We propose a council update every other month within the DAO

  • We propose a council update every other month for the community

- The council proposes reducing the number of council members from 7 to 5 to reflect the changes in overall DAO size and structure.

Council Framework

To offset against major holiday periods, we suggest the term to start in February.

(Re-)Election procedure

In the last week of January and July, a vote of confidence will be posted on snapshot (or any future governance platform) to poll if the community is in favor of continuing with the current council composition or if it feels changes are needed. To aid this process and give the community insights into the current workings of the council, a council update should be provided before going to a vote.

The choice for not doing a full re-election process every 12 months is done to reduce overhead, avoid friction and keep the focus on building out Olympus as opposed to time-consuming election processes. If, however, the OHM holders are dissatisfied with the performance of the council, we propose the following framework:

We propose a 2-week election timeline which would start immediately after the conclusion of a negative vote of confidence.

Week 1: 

DAO contributors can flag their desire to run for council during this week in a public channel in the DAO server, to avoid any risk of censorship. During this week, candidates should lay out their motivations and vision for Olympus. Additionally, they should explain what they would bring to the council. 

Week 2:

At the start of week 2, all candidates who have submitted their motivation will be able to present this to other DAO contributors during a voice call in the DAO, the order of presentation will be randomized to prevent any favoritism.

After this call, a blind vote will take place where DAO contributors above level 4 will be able to cast votes to the amount of council seats. We opt for a blind vote to reduce animosity and friction between DAO contributors.

In case two or more contributors have the same amount of votes, another round of voting will have to be executed with only these candidates on the ballot.

After the conclusion of the voting round(s), a vote will be presented to the community to confirm the composition of this council.

In case of a positive vote, a hand-over will take place between the original and new council members to ensure a smooth transition. During this time, the previous council is still active. If the vote gets rejected, the process will have to start over again until a council is approved by the holders.

The newly elected council will take its place at the start of the next week on Monday and will present themselves to the community during the first following community call.

This proposal combines both ownership of the OHM holders, who ultimately will have the power to push for a new council while still giving a voice to the DAO contributors, who will have to execute the vision of the council and has unique insights into the capabilities of the candidates.

Council size
We propose the reduction of council members from 7 to 5 for the following reasons:

- Since the introduction of the first council, the DAO has consolidated significantly. We feel it is appropriate for the council to be smaller as well.

- The reduction would increase the efficiency of the council. In the past cycle, it could be difficult to get the opinion of 7 members at the same time.
- The cost of the council would be reduced, leaving more budget for other departments.

- Zeus has not been an active council member and has been acting more as a senior advisor to Olympus, a capacity he will still be involved in going forward.
- Indigo has indicated that he would like to step down from the council for the next cycle to focus more on development.
The remaining council members are Apollo, Hohmward, Jala, Shadow and Wartull

Update on reporting requirements

The council has evaluated feedback both from the community and the DAO contributors and identified the need for increased transparency on the workings and decisions of the DAO. For this, we propose:

- A council update every other month within the DAO

- A council update every other month for the community

Polling Period

The RFC will last until Tuesday 1PM UTC. If successful, it will move to OIP and subsequently to snapshot with both 3 day voting periods.

Poll

For: 1. Keep current council in place and implement proposed changes
2: Keep current council and amend proposed changes
3: Change current council and implement proposed changes

Against: Remove current council and proceed with election procedure

Council Framework and Vote of Confidence

This poll has ended.

Thanks for thoughtful proposal - addressing concerns we've heard across community for a while not.

But sorry for being dense, is "1. Keep current council in place and implement proposed changes" meaning the 7->5 change still?

Am very supporting of the 7->5 change, the confidence vote/election process and the higher frequency of reports from Council. Looking forward!

    The election procedure you've laid out here is great and I don't know why going through this process right now wouldn't be a huge benefit to the community.

    I'm grateful for the transparency reports, but the council simply being in power while developers and internal teams churn out new features and proposals doesn't actually give us any insight into the role and day-to-day functions of the council.

    What roles do Apollo, Hohmward, Jala, Shadow and Wartull perform? What do you discuss during your meetings? What are your individual motivations and vision for Olympus? What do you each bring to the council?

    You mention there's a risk of candidates experiencing censorship. Were there DAO contributors who had a desire to run for the initial council that were overlooked? I'd like for them to have access to this new election system to make their voices heard.

      pottedmeat

      Thank you for your feedback, much appreciated! I wanted to respond in particular to these questions:

      pottedmeat What roles do Apollo, Hohmward, Jala, Shadow and Wartull perform? What do you discuss during your meetings? What are your individual motivations and vision for Olympus? What do you each bring to the council?

      On this, I agree we should give transparency on this to the degree that is possible (it has been advised that from a regulatory perspective, it could be bad to name too specific responsibilities). Therefor I will propose that the council will do a Q&A with the community in either a written or spoken form before any snapshot will take place. I do believe the current council has been vocal about their vision in the current tenure. Many council members have been active on Discord, been present and vocal during the community calls which are all recorded and have posted several important OIP's on this forum.

      pottedmeat You mention there's a risk of candidates experiencing censorship. Were there DAO contributors who had a desire to run for the initial council that were overlooked? I'd like for them to have access to this new election system to make their voices heard.

      The current council was elected last year by the strategos where every stratego and lead at that point in the DAO was able to run for the council position. I do agree that all voices should be heard in this system, and it should be an open forum.

      Great to see the evolution of council and this seems like a logical set of procedural steps to sort out.

      What would happen in this scenario:

      • Community passes a vote of no confidence. As far as I understand this does not stipulate any lack of confidence in specific members of the council, but the council in general. Presumably this means existing council members can put themselves back up for vote.
      • Election process begins, some or all existing council members put themselves back up for vote.
      • DAO votes and all or part of the original council is reinstated.
      • The election process has been followed as outlined but if the community is unsatisfied with the largely (or completely) unchanged council, it doesn't get to express this formally for another year.

      This outcome could be avoided with specific votes of no-confidence for each council member. Only those seats would be up for re-election within the DAO, and of course those members who lost the no confidence vote would not be allowed to run.

      The alternative is that a no-confidence vote in the council means a complete change in the council. This seems like a risky and suboptimal route.

      On the point that @pottedmeat raises above about our knowledge of specific council members contributions I largely agree but I think this is solved through each council members areas of accountability. In the initial council proposal each member had a role description and areas of responsibility. So perhaps the community could use these to gauge council members effectiveness. E.G if community management efforts seem shoddy to me, I might give a no-confidence vote to Wartull. (I don't actually think this btw, just an example!)

      Write a Reply...