OpenCommunity Governance: Treasury Proposal Reports and Proposal Document Templates
Dear community,
Thank you all for your continued support in our journey toward improving Kusama's governance process. With your backing, we have been able to successfully launch the OpenCommunity Governance project.
The primary goal of the OpenCommunity Governance project is to enhance the OpenGov ecosystem. To achieve this, we aim to support the process of proposal submission, enabling proposers to draft better, clearer, and more transparent proposals that accurately reflect their project objectives.
As a part of this initiative, we have developed a Proposal Template. This template is a comprehensive guide that aids proposers in presenting their ideas effectively, ensuring they cover all necessary details, from project goals to implementation strategies.
Additionally, we have established a team of dedicated auditors who review each proposal submitted to the public. The auditors provide constructive feedback, pinpointing areas of the proposal that require improvement. This practice not only enhances the quality of the proposals but also assists proposers in refining their project ideas, making them more appealing and understandable to the community.
By doing so, we are striving to create a more robust and transparent OpenGov ecosystem, promoting inclusivity and fostering innovation.
If you have any questions or need help with the proposal, please consider me to be at your disposal and reach me either on Element or Discord
Treasury Proposal Template: 7 Guidelines for a Successful Proposal
Audit Template: Kusama - Treasury Proposal Audit Template
Pre-images and Referenda guide Otar step-by-step guide for submitting OpenGov referenda for Treasury spends
All reports and documents OpenCommunity Governance Project GitHub Repository
Here is the list of proposals associated with the OpenCommunity Governance project:
Referenda #67: This is the original proposal that launched the OpenCommunity Governance project, securing initial community support.
OpenCommunity Governance Extension Proposal: This proposal marked another extension of the project, demonstrating sustained community support and continued demand for governance improvement initiatives.
Final Report Ref #67: This is the final report on the project's objectives, milestones, and deliverables, offering an in-depth insight into the project's operations and achievements.
Referenda #177: This proposal marked the extension of the project for another two months, further expanding the scope and impact of our initiatives.
Referenda #165: The proposal seeks community approval to officially onboard Abdulbee as a recognized member of the Auditor team, emphasizing his demonstrated expertise and the value he brings to the auditing process.
Polkadot OpenGov discussion topic regarding project extension to the Polkadot.
Some examples of proposals written following the template:
-
Staking Admin track - Kusama Validator minimum commission rate
-
Small Spender track - Customized Kusama Chocolate Bars
I am proposing the extension of proposal #67 (Governance 2.0 Referenda Audits) to onboard additional proposal curators for the treasury governance process. The purpose of this plan is to provide additional support and resources for treasury proposals.
Updated: 06/03/2023
I would like to present the Final report which includes a detailed overview of our project objectives, milestones, and deliverables.
I hope that our report will be informative and useful to anyone interested in our project. I welcome any feedback, suggestions, or questions you may have.
Updated: 14/04/2023
Continuation of the project OpenCommunity Governance - Proposal Audit Reports, covering the next 2 months is submitted on-chain. Full proposal.
Updated: 29/04/2023
With the approval of Referenda #177 the project is further extended for 2 months.
Updated: 11/05/2023
It has come to our attention that Google has been flagging IPFS links from the Crust Network as potential phishing sites. To ensure the security and trust of our community, we have made the decision to temporarily remove all audit reports previously posted as PDFs and PNGs on the Crust network from Polkassembly.
Updated: 16/05/2023
Due to Google flagging IPFS links from the Crust Network as potential phishing sites, we've decided to migrate all our audit reports to GitHub for safer and more reliable access. Unfortunately, some of our early reports got overwritten and are now unavailable to retrieve from the Crust links.
Updated: 19/05/2023
We have successfully migrated all our documents and audits to Github, and have established a solid structure agreed upon in collaboration with Polkassembly.
With the upcoming launch of OpenGov on Polkadot, we started a discussion topic regarding OpenGov proposal to extend the project to the Polkadot.
Updated: 06/06/2023
Thank you for your continued interest and support.
Comments (75)
Comments (75)
Is there anyway you can update the proposal template to include a section on conflict of interest / full disclosure? For example, Let's say there is a member who has been self funded for spanish content because their popularity and needs necessitate moving outside of the bounty. But, on the side they're also producing some small amount of content inside of the english language media bounty. The member should clearly state any potential conflicts of interest in what they're asking for funding for, and anything they may be doing or intend to do. In the example case, the member should state that they're primarily focused on the spanish project they're working on but that they're also being funded by the english language bounty for unrelated content and that they're not billing for the creation of english language in their proposal. Keeping with this same example, the member requesting funding for their own spanish project should preclude them (IMO) from operating within the spanish language bounty, or at minimum, that curators are diligent in their oversight of potential double billings for the same content / service / etc. I think we need to be more clear collectively from the get go about potential conflicts of interest and discuss standards for how they should be resolved / viewed.
I just recently used the template as a starting point for my first proposal. There it was of great help for me to understand the process and the requirements. Also CoinStudio was very helpful in chat with other questions I had. Thanks for that!
Is there anyway you can update the proposal template to include a section on conflict of interest / full disclosure? For example, Let's say there is a member who has been self funded for spanish content because their popularity and needs necessitate moving outside of the bounty. But, on the side they're also producing some small amount of content inside of the english language media bounty. The member should clearly state any potential conflicts of interest in what they're asking for funding for, and anything they may be doing or intend to do. In the example case, the member should state that they're primarily focused on the spanish project they're working on but that they're also being funded by the english language bounty for unrelated content and that they're not billing for the creation of english language in their proposal. Keeping with this same example, the member requesting funding for their own spanish project should preclude them (IMO) from operating within the spanish language bounty, or at minimum, that curators are diligent in their oversight of potential double billings for the same content / service / etc. I think we need to be more clear collectively from the get go about potential conflicts of interest and discuss standards for how they should be resolved / viewed.
I just recently used the template as a starting point for my first proposal. There it was of great help for me to understand the process and the requirements. Also CoinStudio was very helpful in chat with other questions I had. Thanks for that!