Recently we’ve had a couple of potential issues come up around executive bundling with regards to technical changes. Initially, we had the proposed flopper change detailed here. Then, more recently we had the activation of the Governance Security Module, detailed here.
These technical changes have brought to light a question as to how we handle the bundling of executive votes with monetary policy changes. Thus far we have largely managed to avoid controversy around the issue, however it makes more sense if we can agree on a policy and vote on-chain before we run into another issue of this nature.
Previous discussion has happened in the threads linked below. My hope is that we can use this thread as a single point of discussion and agreement going forward. To this purpose, I will be locking the previous threads, and leaving a link to this signal request.
The Negatives to Bundling
The issue with bundling monetary policy with technical changes (both emergency or non-emergency) is that it has the potential to either:
- Force voters to vote for something they do not want. (In the case of them liking one change, and disliking the other.)
- Force voters to vote against something that they do want. (in the case of them disliking one change so much that they cannot countenance the other.)
In the extremes, this sort of bundling can:
- Lead to us adopting bad monetary policy (because we needed an emergency technical fix.)
- Lead to abuse of the system and the aggregation of highly charged political changes.
- Lead to governance paralysis at a time when we need to be as nimble as possible (for example an unacceptable monetary policy change gets bundled with an emergency technical fix.)
- <Further negatives here! If you have more disadvantages, please bring them up below, and I will append them to this list.>
The Positives to Bundling
On the other hand, proponents of this system name the following advantages:
- So long as changes are not controversial, it allows us to make more changes more quickly. This can be particularly beneficial in terms of technical changes.
- Having less votes reduces voter exhaustion, potentially increasing or helping to maintain long-term engagement.
- <Further positives here! If you have more advantages, please bring them up below, and I will append them to this list.>
Moving forward to resolution with this issue, I propose we take the following approach (and will continue assuming consent to this approach unless people express their discontent).
- Given that we have already had two signalling threads with positive consensus for desired change, I do not believe it is necessary to put forward a ‘general opinion’ poll as detailed in Stage 1 of the Current Signalling Process.
- Stage 1 would normally contain a gathering of potential solutions to this problem. Given the discussion of the issue so far, and the relative simplicity of the subject, I am also not convinced that this is necessary.
- Given the above, I will begin this thread at stage 2: A multiple choice vote on the specific options of how to handle executive bundling with technical changes in the future.
- Given the holiday, in three weeks we will review the outcome of these signal polls, and (given consensus) move on-chain. If we cannot find consensus, we will attempt to generate alternative options and then vote on those.
In voting in these polls, vote for all options that you agree with. Due to the nature of these polls, any non-conflicting consensus options will be put to an on-chain poll.
A word on terminology:
Supersede: Replace the contents of the executive vote. Anything replaced is not voted on in an executive vote, and is essentially ‘skipped’ for that week.
Separate: Create multiple consecutive executive votes in the same week to push through the different changes.
Bundle: Include multiple sets of changes in the same poll.
- Non-emergency technical changes should supersede non-emergency monetary policy changes.
- Non-emergency technical changes should be separated from non-emergency monetary policy changes.
- Non-emergency technical changes should be bundled with non-emergency monetary policy changes.
- Emergency technical changes should supersede non-emergency monetary policy changes.
- Emergency technical changes should be separated from non-emergency monetary policy changes.
- Emergency technical changes should be bundled with non-emergency monetary policy changes.
- Abstain (I just want to see results)
- Abstain (I have no opinion)
- Abstain (I don’t feel I am knowledgeable on the subject)
- Abstain (I disagree with the poll options)
- Abstain (I have a different objection)
Poll is now closed. Summary can be viewed in my reply below.