MIP4c2-SP11: MIP24 Amendments

MIP4c2-SP11: MIP24 Amendments

Preamble

MIP4c2-SP#: 11
MIP to be Amended: MIP24
Author(s): @juanjuan
Contributors: @elprogreso @iammeeoh
Status: RFC
Date of Amendment Submission: <2021-01-18>
Date of ratification: <yyyy-mm-dd>
Dependencies:

Specification

Motivation

This amendment MIP proposes edits to MIP24 to make it compatible with the newly proposed Core Unit Operating Model MIP set (MIP38, MIP39, MIP40, and MIP41). The main change is to the Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote (MIP24c6) process, which handles the onboarding and offboarding of Facilitators in an attack situation.

Amended Components

  • Component Summary

    • Added the summary for Component 6 (MIP24c6)
  • ### MIP24c4: Urgent Response Procedure

    • Added Core Units to the list of teams that need to be coordinated to respond.
    • Eventually, under the Core Unit Operating Model (MIP38, MIP39, MIP40, and MIP41) the relevant Core Units will have to replace the Domain Teams.

Amendment Pull Request (PR)

  • Updated Version of MIP24 PR

Relevant Information

  • n/a

Edit: removed from from the MIP Set (dependencies removed).

2 Likes

MIP24: Emergency Voting System

Preamble

MIP#: 24
Title: Emergency Response
Author(s): @Davidutro, @jtathmann 
Contributors:
Type: General
Status: Accepted
Date Proposed: 2020-09-07
Date Ratified: 2020-11-24
Dependencies:
Replaces: MIP 5

References

MIP5: Emergency Voting System
Forum Thread: Emergency / Urgent Governance Process
Forum Thread: Covid Crash: Emergency Governance Summary

Sentence Summary

MIP24 defines emergency and urgent situations for the Maker protocol, as well as the process for handling them.

Paragraph Summary

This proposal defines an emergency voting system. Emergency votes are executive votes that can be initiated by any community member. This MIP aims to provide a general guide that can be applied to a wide range of urgent situations. Additionally, this MIP will differentiate between an emergency and an urgent situation, and provide processes which can be carried out to deal with either consistently.

Component Summary

MIP24c1: Situation Definitions

Defines the terms “urgent” and “emergency” for purposes of an expedited governance change.

MIP24c2: Considerations of Expedited Protocol Changes

Outlines the various considerations that should be made before enacting expedited changes.

MIP24c3: Emergency Response Procedure

A general procedure for managing emergency situations.

MIP24c4: Urgent Response Procedure

A general procedure for managing urgent situations.

MIP24c5: Role of Governance Facilitators

Outlines the tasks of the Governance Facilitators during emergency interventions.

MIP24c6: Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote

Outlines the specific process when a Governance Facilitator role is being abused to attack or manipulate the Community.

Motivation

The Protocol has often required changes outside of the standard weekly and monthly governance cycles to help maintain the peg or to respond to changes in the ecosystem. The goal of this MIP is to provide a consistent process to manage emergencies and urgent issues.

Specification / Proposal Details

MIP24c1: Situation Definitions

The procedure for managing expedited changes to the Protocol will depend on whether a situation is classified as an emergency or urgent.

Emergency: Any situation that would require immediate intervention to prevent initiation of Emergency Shutdown, severe peg divergence, or harm to members and users of the ecosystem.

Urgent: Any situation that includes a time-sensitive matter that would need an expedited governance process, where following a standard governance cycle would be too slow, risk a larger problem, or constitute an important missed opportunity.

MIP24c2: Considerations of Expedited Protocol Changes

There are several important factors to consider before expediting changes to the protocol.

  • Potential for MKR holders to miss a poll or executive vote due to departure from the standard governance cycles.
  • Expedited votes may not allow for sufficient discussion, leading to a sub-optimal solution.
  • Increased governance burden on Community and increased workload for domain teams.
  • Frequent expedited votes may signal a lack of appreciation for a consistent and predictable governance process.

MIP24c3: Emergency Response Procedure

The ability to declare an emergency will be reserved for Domain Teams and Governance Facilitators due to their proximity to, and knowledge of, the Maker Protocol and surrounding ecosystem. If a community member wishes to declare an emergency, they will follow the urgent response procedure outlined in MIP24c4. If a Governance Facilitator agrees that the status of the urgent situation should be escalated to “emergency,” they will do so.

The emergency response process will be initiated as follows:

Declare an emergency in the public forum providing sufficient detail regarding the issue and why immediate action is required. If time does not permit, a forum post will be created immediately after or in parallel to taking emergency action. Creating a signal request thread or governance poll is optional.

  • If a remedy is known and uncontentious the Governance Facilitators will coordinate with necessary domain teams to expedite an executive vote.
  • If a remedy is not known or is contentious the Governance Facilitators will coordinate an emergency governance call to discuss solutions and a plan for subsequent actions, explicitly inviting known stakeholders.

MIP24c4: Urgent Response Procedure

An urgent response may be requested by any community member if they believe the system is experiencing an emergency or urgent situation as defined in MIP24c1.

The urgent response process will be initiated as follows:

The process will be initiated with a signal request thread in the public forum stating the need for expedited governance action and include the following:

  • Sufficient detail regarding the issue.
  • Proposed action or request to discuss what action governance should take.
  • Signal Poll to gauge community sentiment of whether urgent action is needed.
  • Tag @Gov-Facilitators at the bottom of the post, so that they will be notified and oversee discussion.

Signal Poll Requirement

Any signal poll must adhere to the Practical Guide as closely as possible given the circumstances for the change.

  • In order for the community to make a change to a system parameter, a signal request must reach a 50% majority and have a reasonable quorum of voters given recent participation.
  • In order for the community to make a change outside of the existing system parameters, a signal request must reach a 66% majority and have a reasonable quorum of voters given recent participation.

Mandated Actor Responsibilities

If the signal for an urgent response passes, Governance Facilitators will coordinate with necessary Core Units and Domain Teams to expedite a governance poll for MKR holders or to advance an executive vote, at their discretion.

At any time during the urgent response procedure a Domain Team or Governance Facilitator may elevate the status to an emergency. At that time, the procedure in MIP24c3 will be carried out.

MIP24c5: Role of Governance Facilitators

Governance Facilitators will oversee emergency and urgent situation processes to ensure they are carried out in a civil and consistent manner. They will be responsible for confirming poll outcomes and identifying whether the community or external actors have attempted to abuse or game the emergency voting system, and may block a request for emergency action at their discretion.

MIP24c6: Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote

If the community discovers the Governance Facilitator role is being abused to attack or manipulate the Community, such as baselessly censoring MIPs and other governance proposals from functioning properly, a Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote can be used to end the censorship without bypassing the MIPs framework.

Definition and Process

A Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote is an executive vote that provides a list of Emergency Governance Facilitators by encoding a list of one or more website URLs and corresponding Facilitator Name and Information items into an on-chain executive vote (spell).

The on-chain executive vote (spell) also contains logic that immediately removes control of any technical Budget Implementation by the existing Governance Facilitators. If the executive vote gets the most MKR votes and becomes the active proposal (hat) a state of emergency begins, and the existing Governance Facilitators are removed.

In practice this means that all Governance Core Units (Core Units with the ID GOV in MIP38: DAO Primitives state) have their Facilitators removed as if they were offboarded using MIP41c5.

Governace Facilitator Governance Powers

The regular MIP41c6 Fallback Decision Process applies for choosing Interim Facilitators to take control of the Budget Implementations of the Governance Core Units, but the special Governance Facilitator Governance Powers are not transitioned this way (as they would normally if a Governance Core Unit was vacated for some other reason than a state of emergency).

Tranisition of Governance Powers and Responsibilities

The Governance Facilitator Governance Powers and responsibilities for running the governance process and Community are instead transitioned to the new set of Emergency Governance Facilitators specified in the Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote (who can also be the same people that become the Interim Facilitators through the Fallback Decision Process).

Emergency Governance Facilitators’ Platforms

The list of website URLs and Facilitator name and information corresponds to the new Emergency Governance Facilitators and their governance platforms (voting frontend, communication channels) that replace the former Governance Facilitators who were just removed. These Emergency Governance Facilitators will then take over running the Governance processes specified in MIP0, MIP16 and MIP24 until a regular MIP41c4 Facilitator Onboarding is done to at least one Governance Core Unit.

End of the State of Emergency

Once a permanent Facilitator has been onboarded to a Governance Core Unit the state of emergency ends and the Emergency Governance Facilitators lose their Governance Facilitator Governance Powers. Interim Facilitators that were chosen through the Fallback Decision Process because of the state of emergency, and that remain after the state of emergency ends (because a permanent facilitator for the specific Core Unit they were chosen to take over hasn’t been onboarded yet), still do not get Governance Facilitator Governance Powers but still only control the Budget Implementations.

Additionally, when a Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote passes, The current governance cycle is cancelled, and the new Interim Governance Facilitators initiate a new governance cycle on the following 1st Monday of the month.

3 Likes

MIP 24 replaced MIP 5!

3 Likes

Yep, just to echo this, I think you’ll need to read over MIP24 and see if these changes are still necessary, and if so, make the amendments to MIP24.

3 Likes

I’ve seen the amendment proposes to add back MIP24c6: Governance Facilitator Emergency Vote, which was purposefully removed since such a situation can be handled by the existing process in MIP24. The community or mandated actors could call for an urgent vote, create a signal request thread, and move to an on-chain vote to remove the violating Governance Facilitator.

The thing this component adds is the naming of interim “Emergency Governance Facilitators” to take the duties of the GF that is being removed. Though I thought this is already covered by MIP41c6. It also explicitly states the removal of the violating GF from the Core Unit budget implementation(though this is already covered in MIP41c5.)

I think we should be aiming to keep things simple if we can, otherwise, the MIPs become unnecessarily burdensome. Including this additional component is unnecessary in my opinion. I will give some feedback anyway, in case you do end up including this in formal submission, it should be improved upon.

by encoding a list of one or more website URLs
what does this mean? URLs to what? Can we make this more readable, or simplify it? Below it states URLs to GF platforms, but aren’t those static? Do we really need this as part of the process?

I’m confused by this bit, what exactly are the powers? The statement here just says the powers are transitioned differently than outlined in MIP31c6. How so? It doesn’t seem to say. In the next header, where it does try to explain, it’s still not clear. It talks about the “who” but not the “how”. So overall, I am still missing the how.

why does it have to be a new list? Shouldn’t the fallback decision process and the list of interim facilitators naturally select for the replacement? Or is this meant to be in place in case there are no interim GFs pre-selected?

I think a better description, that would keep everything a lot simpler, is “Interim Governance Facilitator”

I don’t think there needs to be a distinction between an emergency replacement facilitator and a fallback facilitator. Both end up being Interim until getting voted into the Core Unit as permanent. Don’t they?

Is this sentence in conflict with the below sentence found in the same paragraph?


My feedback overall is to try to simplify the terms and process as much as possible in order to be as clear as possible. Otherwise, this all becomes very hard to follow. It took me a while of reading, rereading, and digging into the other connected mips to understand the regular GF removal and replacement process versus this emergency one. What I’ve come away with is that the difference is only in a possible separate list for interims vs Emergency replacements, and the mention of special power associated with an Emergency GF and not with an Interim GF. Those special powers are not clearly defined here–I think the special power is described as a different way to transfer control of the budget implementation, but otherwise seems to be the regular GF duties.

Thanks for the feedback, @Davidutro (as always).

Right now, a Governance Facilitator and potential Core Units Facilitators (with certain Governance powers) have control of the information, flow, and processes (and there’s a good reason for that).

This amendment aims to give an ultimate, last-resort, don’t-fork-the-protocol-yet solution for MKR holders. I wanted to call it the “LongGoesRogue amendment,” but the Public Relations department didn’t let me.

I guess I’ll be looking forward to your Pull Request (This is your MIP, after all).

1 Like

My PR would be to just remove this entire component. I think it’s redundant since the process as it exists + MIP41 components cover the removal of a rogue GF.

Curious to know if you think my view is valid.

MIP24: Emergency Voting System

Preamble

MIP#: 24
Title: Emergency Response
Author(s): @Davidutro, @jtathmann
Contributors:
Type: General
Status: Accepted
Date Proposed: 2020-09-07
Date Ratified: 2020-11-24
Dependencies:
Replaces: MIP 5

References

MIP5: Emergency Voting System
Forum Thread: Emergency / Urgent Governance Process
Forum Thread: Covid Crash: Emergency Governance Summary

Sentence Summary

MIP24 defines emergency and urgent situations for the Maker protocol, as well as the process for handling them.

Paragraph Summary

This proposal defines an emergency voting system. Emergency votes are executive votes that can be initiated by any community member. This MIP aims to provide a general guide that can be applied to a wide range of urgent situations. Additionally, this MIP will differentiate between an emergency and an urgent situation, and provide processes which can be carried out to deal with either consistently.

Component Summary

MIP24c1: Situation Definitions

Defines the terms “urgent” and “emergency” for purposes of an expedited governance change.

MIP24c2: Considerations of Expedited Protocol Changes

Outlines the various considerations that should be made before enacting expedited changes.

MIP24c3: Emergency Response Procedure

A general procedure for managing emergency situations.

MIP24c4: Urgent Response Procedure

A general procedure for managing urgent situations.

MIP24c5: Role of Governance Facilitators

Outlines the tasks of the Governance Facilitators during emergency interventions.

Motivation

The Protocol has often required changes outside of the standard weekly and monthly governance cycles to help maintain the peg or to respond to changes in the ecosystem. The goal of this MIP is to provide a consistent process to manage emergencies and urgent issues.

Specification / Proposal Details

MIP24c1: Situation Definitions

The procedure for managing expedited changes to the Protocol will depend on whether a situation is classified as an emergency or urgent.

Emergency: Any situation that would require immediate intervention to prevent initiation of Emergency Shutdown, severe peg divergence, or harm to members and users of the ecosystem.

Urgent: Any situation that includes a time-sensitive matter that would need an expedited governance process, where following a standard governance cycle would be too slow, risk a larger problem, or constitute an important missed opportunity.

MIP24c2: Considerations of Expedited Protocol Changes

There are several important factors to consider before expediting changes to the protocol.

  • Potential for MKR holders to miss a poll or executive vote due to departure from the standard governance cycles.
  • Expedited votes may not allow for sufficient discussion, leading to a sub-optimal solution.
  • Increased governance burden on Community and increased workload for domain teams.
  • Frequent expedited votes may signal a lack of appreciation for a consistent and predictable governance process.

MIP24c3: Emergency Response Procedure

The ability to declare an emergency will be reserved for Domain Teams and Governance Facilitators due to their proximity to, and knowledge of, the Maker Protocol and surrounding ecosystem. If a community member wishes to declare an emergency, they will follow the urgent response procedure outlined in MIP24c4. If a Governance Facilitator agrees that the status of the urgent situation should be escalated to “emergency,” they will do so.

The emergency response process will be initiated as follows:

Declare an emergency in the public forum providing sufficient detail regarding the issue and why immediate action is required. If time does not permit, a forum post will be created immediately after or in parallel to taking emergency action. Creating a signal request thread or governance poll is optional.

  • If a remedy is known and uncontentious the Governance Facilitators will coordinate with necessary domain teams to expedite an executive vote.
  • If a remedy is not known or is contentious the Governance Facilitators will coordinate an emergency governance call to discuss solutions and a plan for subsequent actions, explicitly inviting known stakeholders.

MIP24c4: Urgent Response Procedure

An urgent response may be requested by any community member if they believe the system is experiencing an emergency or urgent situation as defined in MIP24c1.

The urgent response process will be initiated as follows:

The process will be initiated with a signal request thread in the public forum stating the need for expedited governance action and include the following:

  • Sufficient detail regarding the issue.
  • Proposed action or request to discuss what action governance should take.
  • Signal Poll to gauge community sentiment of whether urgent action is needed.
  • Tag @Gov-Facilitators at the bottom of the post, so that they will be notified and oversee discussion.

Signal Poll Requirement

Any signal poll must adhere to the Practical Guide as closely as possible given the circumstances for the change.

  • In order for the community to make a change to a system parameter, a signal request must reach a 50% majority and have a reasonable quorum of voters given recent participation.
  • In order for the community to make a change outside of the existing system parameters, a signal request must reach a 66% majority and have a reasonable quorum of voters given recent participation.

Mandated Actor Responsibilities

If the signal for an urgent response passes, Governance Facilitators will coordinate with necessary Core Units and Domain Teams to expedite a governance poll for MKR holders or to advance an executive vote, at their discretion.

At any time during the urgent response procedure, a Domain Team or Governance Facilitator may elevate the status to an emergency. At that time, the procedure in MIP24c3 will be carried out.

MIP24c5: Role of Governance Facilitators

Governance Facilitators will oversee emergency and urgent situation processes to ensure they are carried out in a civil and consistent manner. They will be responsible for confirming poll outcomes and identifying whether the community or external actors have attempted to abuse or game the emergency voting system, and may block a request for emergency action at their discretion.

1 Like

Not sure this is accurate, because the emergency removal process does bypass the MIPs process.

This is unclear imo. Like what needs to be at these website URLs? Just a name? An onboarding subproposal? etc.

Why all Governance Core Unit Facilitators, and not just the one or more censoring the governance process?

Maybe this belongs in the other MIP? Also Governace → Governance.

This assumes that people have their own frontends. Maybe there should also be a point about the controllers of the commonly owned frontends are obligated to remove the removed governance facilitators access if they are able to do so. Something about reclaiming commons versions rather than necessarily deploying new versions.

Until when? When / if they do their own facilitator commitment?

This could be a vector of attack. Maybe leave it up to the new / interim facilitators whether the cycle should go ahead or not?


For what it’s worth, I don’t think this is a bad inclusion. It’s unlikely to crop up any time soon, imo, but it’s worth having a clearly defined process if the Governance Facilitator(s) go rogue.

2 Likes

I think mixing the general process of Emergency and Urgent votes with emergency removal of a rogue GF makes for bad MIP structure.

I removed the emergency GF removal stuff from the original MIP 5, feel free to read into my reasoning in the thread I am quoting from below.

2 Likes

Governance Facilitators have control over the standard process.

Which the current Governance Facilitators could censor.

That’s why the emergency process includes this:

Because the current Facilitators can’t censor or gatekeep executive spells on the blockchain.

I don’t think this is essential, because I think most of that would happen anyway, and I’m not planning on going rogue. On balance I’d rather see it included in a MIP in some form though.

3 Likes

That’s exactly what a rogue Governance Facilitator would say!

(Bad) jokes aside, I would expect most of the things to happen organically:

The whole idea of this amendment was to add another step on the way to an undesired Emergency Shutdown.

I’ll leave it on RFC for longer. Maybe someone in the future can articulate this idea better.

4 Likes