MIP2: Launch Period

MIP2: Launch Period

Preamble

MIP#: 2
Title: Launch Period
Author(s): Rune Christensen (@Rune23) and Charles St.Louis (@CPSTL)
Type: Process
Status: <Assigned by MIP Editor>
Date Proposed: 2020-04-06
Dependencies: n/a
Replaces: n/a

Summary

This proposal details the process of how Maker Governance can bootstrap the setup and implementation of the first Governance Paradigm. More specifically, it defines two phases:

  1. Phase 1: when a core governance framework is put in place and a functional collateral onboarding process is ratified.
  2. Phase 2: when the Problem Space is in the process of being addressed with MIPs and MIP Sets.

Lastly, the proposal states that MIP2 itself will become obsolete when the Problem Space has officially been addressed.

Motivation

One of the critical motivations of the MIP framework is that there are a finite number of critical issues that must be covered with appropriate governance processes for the Maker system to be safe (see MIP1 Governance Paradigms).

At the same time, the goal is also to ensure that the process of implementing and altering critical governance process logic is done at a pace that gives the community enough time to scrutinize and understand specific ideas.

However, these two goals contradict each other in the initial “launch period” where there isn’t a formal governance framework in place yet. As a result, the need to “cover all bases” by having a robust, simple solution for governance processes in place for all critical risks takes precedent over the goal of slowing down and deeply scrutinizing all proposals. Without proactive solutions in place, the community could be forced into undesirable reactive decision making in the event a critical problem or an opportunity occurs that doesn’t yet have a defined process. Reactive decision making has the potential of bad precedents that weren’t fully understood at the time.

As a result, the community should prioritize getting the initial processes in place that will cover all the critical risks and opportunities that are built as a formalization of existing processes or knowledge in the community and Maker Foundation. Once the initial governance paradigm is in place the community can amend or replace it as necessary to build a more permanent and robust paradigm, taking advantage of the practical knowledge gained in the interim period.

Specification / Proposal Details

MIP2 Components

  1. MIP2c1: Interim Phase 1
  2. MIP2c2: Interim Phase 2
  3. MIP2c3: MIP2 Obsolescence

MIP2c1: Interim Phase 1

Interim Phase 1 commences with the ratification of this MIP. During Interim Phase 1, the following logic overrides that defined in MIP0:

  1. The Feedback Period and Frozen Period defined in MIP0 are ignored for both MIPs and Subproposals.
  2. Multiple MIPs can be voted in with a single vote.
    • Before the vote, alternatives to the MIPs within the MIP Set can be proposed if they interface correctly with all the other MIPs within the Set.

During Interim Phase 1, the following additional logic is applied to the MIPs process defined in MIP0:

  • A single vote approves or rejects all MIPs during phase 1.
  • If rejected, MIPs can be reintroduced to the community for another vote once the issues that resulted in its initial rejection have been addressed.

Interim Phase 1 ends when there is a core governance framework in place and a functional collateral onboarding process.


MIP2c2: Interim Phase 2

Interim Phase 2 commences as Interim Phase 1 ends.

During Interim Phase 2, the following logic overrides that defined in MIP0:

  1. The Feedback Period and Frozen Period defined in MIP0 are ignored.

During Interim Phase 2, the following additional logic is applied to the MIPs process defined in MIP0:

  1. The Feedback Period for the MIPs going through the MIPs process is 1 month.
  2. The Frozen Period for the MIPs going through the MIPs process is 1 week.
  3. If rejected, MIPs can be reintroduced to the community for another vote once the issues that resulted in its initial rejection have been addressed.

Interim Phase 2 ends when the Problem Space has been addressed. More specifically, this is when MIP Sets have been ratified that have addressed each problem statement within the Problem Space.


MIP2c3: MIP2 Obsolescence

Once the Problem space has been addressed, MIP2 stops having an effect and the Feedback Period and Frozen Period defined in MIP0 take effect immediately. Furthermore, MIP2 is immediately granted the Obsolete status, meaning anything defined within MIP2 should no longer be considered to be the active standard.


1 Like

This whole MIP should be subsumed into a general single governance process MIP in terms of process details. The discussion subsumed into a the MIP governance reference document relating to the relevant process mechanics.

I would rather look at the MIP2c1 and MIP2c2 in the context of a MIP that has MIP governance process laid out cleanly vs. piecemeal.

To my mind the attempt at distinction of MIP2 from say MIP3 seems stretched and this MIP governance process details should be merged into a single MIP related to governance processes, timing, lists of operational domains, templates for process (if any), reference documents for discussion, explanation. etc.

1 Like

Wait either I am confused, or you are, or we all are. I thought this MIP is basically unrelated to all the other MIPs because it describes the process for initially accepting MIPs (Most importantly MIP 0). In that case I dont think it can be incorporated into other MIPs, since the purpose is to on-board MIPs without the MIP 0 process being in place yet.

Regardless…this definitely needs more information on how these votes occur

This doesn’t give any info on how these votes occur or what type of votes these are.

2 Likes

No @Mitote we are not confuse we see the same thing me and you.

1 Like

hehe I will be confused until the day of reckoning, but I am glad we see the same thing.

1 Like

Well it is possible we are confused, when I read this it just seemed related to MIP processing generally not specifically to MIP0 which you are suggesting which to my mind would seem odd (why would the processing of these MIPs be any different than general MIPs and why have a MIP for that when after the initial process this MIP could literally be torn up.).

This was why I thought it was more properly a component of the MIP Framework (MIP0) with part of related to governance processing of MIPs generally (MIP submission/discussin/vote/acceptance governance process)…

2 Likes

How is this MIP ratified if it doesn’t follow MIP0?

@charlesstlouis can you clear up whats going on with this MIP? Now I am doubting what I am interpreting, and LFW liked Makerman’s comment so hes probably on the right track.

1 Like

^Yes, this is pretty much correct.

In the Announcement Post and the Vision for a self-sustaining MakerDAO post, it was stated that on April 27th there will be a special governance poll (timing poll). This timing poll will have two options :

  1. Proceed with the ratification vote of the 13 proposed MIPs immediately; or
  2. Delay the ratification for one month, and then institute a period of time to allow competing proposals to be submitted by the community.

In the case of option 1 (the timing poll resulting in proceeding with the ratification vote), this means that Phase MIP2c1: Interim Phase 1’s logic is in effect, where:

  • The Feedback Period and Frozen Period defined in MIP0 are ignored for both MIPs and Subproposals.
  • Multiple MIPs can be voted in with a single vote in the ratification vote.
  • A single vote approves or rejects all MIPs during phase 1.

The ratification vote would occur over the course of four days, May 1-4. If the ratification vote resolves to yes, then the initial 13 MIPs would are officially ratified and the first Governance Cycle (defined in MIP3) would begin on May 4. At this point, Interim Phase 1 would be over effective immediately.

Now, with all that being said, @Mitote’s comment brings up and important correction that I think needs to be made. Instead of saying “Interim Phase 1 commences with the ratification of this MIP”, it should read “Interim Phase 1 commences when the governance timing vote elects that the initial MIPs should proceed with the ratification vote” (or something similar).

2 Likes

The MIPs Github repo is now public and MIP2 can be found here: https://github.com/makerdao/mips/blob/master/mip2.md

1 Like

Is there not a missing Dependency on MIP0 here? Or, a missing Dependency in MIP0 on MIP2? Still getting my mind around which way the dependencies should really work…

And, For Interim Phase 2, are the Feedback and Frozen Period ignored for both MIPs and Sub Proposals as in Interim Phase 1? Trying to understand why it is phrased differently.

1 Like

Good question. MIP2 will list MIP0 as a dependency.

Yes, the Interim Phase 2 does ignore the Feedback Period and Frozen Period defined in MIP0 but implements longer periods than Phase 1. More specifically:

  1. The Feedback Period for the MIPs going through the MIPs process is 1 month.
  2. The Frozen Period for the MIPs going through the MIPs process is 1 week.
1 Like

Thank you for dependency clarification.

As for Interim Phase 2 I was asking specifically about Sub-Proposals, seeing as they were included in the Phase 1 phrasing, but excluded from Phase 2 and I was wondering if there was a reason for this.

P.S. say “Phase 1 phrasing” five times fast :wink:

2 Likes

The most updated version of MIP2 can be found here: https://github.com/makerdao/mips/tree/master/MIP2