Community moderation for proposals before voting session: xGov

Governance
1

Silent Rhetoric has demonstrated how easy it is to spam xGov proposals via github ( xGov-130 to xGov-139) : AlgoROSSA. Pull requests · algorandfoundation/xGov · GitHub
I suggest a community review of all proposals by xGovs before voting starts.

Voting period can be dived into two parts:

  1. Community review: For suggestions, feedback, removal of duplicates and removal of proposals that don’t meet community standards.
  2. Voting: General voting period.
3 Likes
2

I disagree, it will create a very tribal environment where it turns into an all boys club.

If this program is meant to be for “experts” to vote, then the “experts” should do proper due diligence before voting.

3 Likes
3

What about xGovs do the moderation and then it goes for voting.

2 Likes
4

While i disagree with Silent’s method (although i find it quite smart), i am against any sort of vetting process as i pointed it out in the past. I have no trust in any sort of appointed bodies to keep it objective and no’t have personal interests in mind - this premise is further solidified by defi and nft councils action or lack of them. I joined xgov because any proposal has a chance to pass if it convinces enough people.

3 Likes
5

Your not wrong but then who are these “experts”, what interest do they have? I believe there is already tribalism here even with minimal participation.

2 Likes
6

Gatekeeping is not something I recommend. Instead, a random proposal will go to a random xGov address for moderation.

This is not possible in current workflow. But if we have a seperate app for xGov, this can be accomplished easily.

3 Likes
7

The “experts” was a mock on xgov standing for expert governors.

The voting pattern from the first two periods has suggested everything other than expert.

4 Likes
8

I feel offended, considering my “expertise” as a governor.

5 Likes
9

Would it be possible to limit the amount of proposals one individual/team can get through each round? Would address the spamming as demonstrated by silent, but avoids appointing gatekeepers?

2 Likes
10

I am not sure if it is prudent to do a gate keeping. Spams can be removed before merging. It is upto xGovs to decide which one to vote and which one not to.

2 Likes
11

I agree with this opinion. Its the fail of the proposed voting system that it cannot handle day to day decision making.

AF should create or adopt the voting system where multiple voting sessions can go in paralel, where people do not have to vote in every session but can rather set the delegation to accounts they trust, which is not manipulated the way as the general governance or xgov system because there is open information about everybody who voted how voted and how much votes is missing for proposals to pass. Also I want to see all changes to the algorand source code to be approved by onchain decision making.