[Discussion] Governance Poll Missing Parameter

Hey all,

Unfortunately, one parameter (the debt auction bid duration) was left out of the governance poll: https://vote.makerdao.com/polling-proposal/qmba2hpv3kcbjgzvlnv7xsogs3jenqdiqo3ffnktgqtepn

This was due to carelessness on my part, and I apologize for that. Consequently, we have an issue that we need to discuss and come to consensus on before MCD launch.

The situation as it currently stands is the community is voting on an incomplete set of parameters. None of the current parameters are incorrect (which is a separate but interesting scenario we should discuss at a later time), but just incomplete. Due to the way the polls go into the system, it is not possible to edit the wording (and in any case that could be potentially dangerous for other reasons).

What are the implications here for the MCD launch executive vote? Whatever the community aligns on is what we can do. It’s up to you guys. We’ve laid out a few basic options, but feel free to propose others.

Option 1: Make a separate governance poll solely with this missing parameter. This would ensure that everything has been voted on before the executive vote, but would add a bit of overhead to the community in the final two weeks.

Option 2: Do nothing. The governance poll should be treated as a sentiment poll, and is non-binding with respective to the executive vote. The executive vote is the one that really matters, and where the community should be doing their due diligence. As long as the executive vote is correct, there’s no issue. We can put out an addendum/poll here in the forum and gauge consensus on what to do.

Option 3: Invalidate the current poll and restart with the added parameter. This is the most extreme option, but possible if the community thinks this is the path to go.

Two more notes: I know there isn’t a lot of clarity yet on how the auction parameters were calculated. There will be a doc coming later this week, and we will be discussing it on the governance call this Thursday.

Secondly, regarding how we are working to prevent this in the future. We are already paying particular attention to QA and ensuring the correct parameters are set on the engineering side, but it looks like we need to extend that process to the entire governance cycle end to end. We’ll circle back with solutions once have a solution in place, but ultimately we’ll need to work together with the community to ensure QA.


Does it make sense to edit your post so that those options appear as an actual poll @cyrus


Mistakes happen, don’t beat yourself up about it. This is a pretty minor issue, especially considering how catastrophic it could be if certain parameters were actually set incorrectly in the system.

This makes sense to me. We don’t need additional overhead right now.

Glad to see this paragraph, when something has gone wrong, it’s always good to discuss how to avoid the same problem in the future. I’m going to take this opportunity to link this thread that I made about community validation teams. QA is something that could come under that role. It definitely makes sense that QA extend to the governance process in general (though we should try to limit the cost as much as possible.)

Let’s not get too ideological. Did anyone from community object to the actual parameter? No?
Let’s pretend nothing happened (option 2).

1 Like

I’m going to say option 2 for me too

1 Like

We already ran a new poll due to the other incorrect parameter, but thanks for your input guys.

1 Like

Yes, that is better, we cannot ignore this. Thanks @cyrus