The Proposal Process in Decentralised Autonomous Governments (DAGs)
Introduction
As we continue to explore the evolving landscape of Decentralised Autonomous Governments (DAGs), understanding the proposal process becomes essential. Imagine living in a community where every resident has the power to propose meaningful changes — whether it’s enhancing local parks, improving road safety near schools, or launching a new community initiative.
This process lies at the heart of a DAG’s ability to function democratically, enabling community members to suggest, refine, and implement initiatives that benefit everyone.
In this article, we’ll walk through a potential proposal process that balances inclusivity, transparency, and efficiency, ensuring that every voice in the community is heard and valued.
This article is part of a series:
- Part 1: An Introduction to DAGs
- Part 2: Core Features of a DAG
- Proposal Process
The Proposal Process: A Potential Framework
The proposal process in a DAG is designed to make community-driven governance a reality. It is both structured and flexible, allowing for robust participation while ensuring that all proposals are carefully considered and refined before implementation. Here’s how this process could work:
- Idea Submission
- Initial Verification
- Random Committee Review
- Community Discussion and Feedback
- Expert Review and Analysis (If Required)
- Community Reassessment
- Preparation for Voting
- Public Vote
- Vote Outcome and Implementation
- Post-Implementation Review and Documentation
View the sequence diagram here
1. Proposal Submission
The first step in the proposal process is submission. Community members are encouraged to submit proposals through a digital platform dedicated to the DAG. These proposals might detail initiatives, policy changes, or new projects that the community believes will be beneficial.
- Clarity and Alignment: Proposals should be clearly written, feasible, and aligned with the community’s overarching goals. A structured format, such as the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound), can help ensure that proposals are well thought out.
- Incentives for Quality Proposals: To encourage thoughtful and impactful proposals, citizens who submit proposals recognised as high-quality and beneficial to the community could be rewarded with cryptocurrency, reputation scores, and badges. These incentives help foster a culture of meaningful participation and innovation.
2. Initial Verification
Once a proposal is submitted, it undergoes an initial verification process. This step ensures that all proposals meet basic submission criteria before moving forward in the process.
- Completeness Check: The proposal is reviewed for completeness, ensuring that all required sections are filled out and that the proposal adheres to basic guidelines.
- Adherence to Guidelines: The proposal is checked against community guidelines to ensure it aligns with the community’s values and strategic goals.
3. Random Committee Review
To ensure that proposals are valid and ready for further consideration, a random committee of community members is selected to review them. This committee operates similarly to a jury, ensuring fairness and democratic participation.
- Voluntary Participation: Community members can voluntarily sign up to be part of the committee pool, ensuring that those involved are engaged and willing. Regular prompts can help maintain a diverse and inclusive pool of potential committee members.
- Fair and Transparent Selection: An algorithm randomly selects committee members from the pool for each review cycle. Measures are in place to prevent consecutive selections, allowing broad participation and fresh perspectives.
- Responsibilities of the Committee: The committee reviews proposals for clarity, completeness, and adherence to submission guidelines. They provide constructive feedback to proposers, helping them refine their ideas if necessary. Committee members could be rewarded with cryptocurrency, reputation scores, and badges for their contributions, recognising the importance of their role in the governance process.
4. Community Discussion and Feedback
Following the committee review, proposals are made public for community discussion. This phase allows all community members to engage with the proposals, providing feedback and suggestions for improvement.
- Open Dialogue: The community is encouraged to discuss the merits and potential drawbacks of each proposal. This dialogue helps refine proposals and ensures they reflect a broad range of perspectives.
- Incorporating Feedback: Proposers can revise their proposals based on the feedback received, ensuring that the final version is as robust and well-supported as possible.
5. Expert Review and Analysis (If Required)
For proposals that involve technical complexities or require specialised knowledge, an expert review is conducted. This ensures that the proposal is viable from a technical standpoint and considers any potential risks or challenges.
- Detailed Analysis: Experts provide detailed feedback and recommendations, helping to refine the proposal further.
- Cost Estimates: Where applicable, experts provide rough cost estimates to inform the community about the financial implications of the proposal.
6. Community Reassessment
After the expert review, the revised proposals are presented back to the community for reassessment. This step allows for final community input before moving to the voting phase.
- Final Feedback: The community has one last opportunity to provide input, ensuring that any remaining concerns are addressed.
- Preparation for Voting: Once the community reassessment is complete, the proposal is finalised and prepared for voting. All necessary documentation is completed, and the voting mechanism is set up.
7. Public Vote
The voting period then opens, allowing all community members to cast their votes on the finalised proposals.
- Voting Integrity: Voting is conducted online, with blockchain technology ensuring that all votes are recorded securely and transparently.
- Majority Rule and Flexibility: Initially, a simple majority rule is used to determine whether a proposal is accepted. However, if the community finds that this method doesn’t adequately reflect their needs, they have the flexibility to propose and vote on a different voting mechanism, such as supermajority requirements or ranked-choice voting.
8. Vote Outcome and Implementation
Once the voting period concludes, the results are tallied and announced to the community. Proposals that receive the necessary support move on to the implementation phase.
- Implementation Phase: The accepted proposals are implemented, with progress monitored and reported back to the community to ensure transparency and accountability.
9. Post-Implementation Review and Documentation
After implementation, a post-implementation review is conducted to assess the impact and effectiveness of the proposal.
- Assessment and Evaluation: The community evaluates whether the proposal met its goals and what improvements could be made in the future.
- Knowledge Sharing: Lessons learned during the implementation process are documented and shared with the community, helping to improve future proposals and governance processes.
Future Enhancements and Improvements
While the outlined proposal process provides a robust framework, there is always room for improvement and adaptation. Here are some future enhancements that could further strengthen the DAG proposal process:
AI Integration for Proposal Scoring
- Potential for AI: In the future, AI systems could be introduced to help score and prioritise proposals based on factors such as urgency, impact, and alignment with community goals. AI could assist in analysing large volumes of proposals, providing initial impact scores that help in prioritising them for review.
- Maintaining Human Oversight: While AI could enhance efficiency, it’s crucial to maintain human oversight to ensure fairness and avoid over-reliance on technology. The community and committees would still play a central role in decision-making.
Flexibility in Voting Mechanisms
- Adapting Voting Methods: Initially, the DAG might use a simple majority rule for voting. However, the community should have the flexibility to change the voting mechanism if it proves ineffective. For instance, the community might opt for supermajority requirements, ranked-choice voting, or quadratic voting for specific types of proposals.
- Community-Driven Changes: The ability to propose and vote on different voting mechanisms ensures that the system remains adaptable and responsive to the community’s evolving needs.
Proxy Voting
- Inclusive Participation: Proxy voting could be introduced to allow members who are unable to participate directly to delegate their voting rights. This ensures that everyone has a chance to contribute to decision-making, even if they can’t vote in person.
- Ensuring Representation: It’s important to carefully consider how proxies are chosen to accurately reflect the original voter’s intentions and maintain the integrity of the process.
Enhancing Transparency During Implementation
- Real-Time Monitoring: To maintain transparency, real-time updates on the progress of approved proposals could be provided through a public dashboard. This would allow community members to track the implementation of initiatives they voted for.
- Regular Reporting: Regular updates and detailed reports on the progress of the implementation phase can help maintain community trust and engagement.
Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
- Addressing Conflicts: Including a mechanism for resolving disputes related to voting outcomes or the implementation process could add an extra layer of fairness and accountability. This might involve mediation committees or an appeals process to address any issues that arise.
Real-World Example 1: Proposal Process for Road Safety Improvements Near Schools
To bring this process to life, let’s look at a practical example: improving road safety near local schools.
Step 1: Proposal Submission
A concerned community member submits a detailed proposal aimed at improving road safety near schools. The proposal includes a clear rationale, desired outcomes, and preliminary data or observations supporting the need for this initiative.
Step 2: Initial Verification
The proposal undergoes an automated verification process to ensure it is complete and adheres to the submission guidelines, making it ready for community discussion and expert evaluation.
Step 3: Random Committee Review
A randomly selected committee of community members reviews the proposal to verify its categorisation and ensure it meets all necessary criteria for further evaluation. Committee members provide constructive feedback to the proposer if needed and are rewarded with cryptocurrency, reputation scores, and badges for their participation.
Step 4: Community Discussion and Feedback
The proposal is then opened for community discussion. Members share their personal experiences, express support or concerns, and suggest additional safety measures. This feedback is crucial for refining the proposal and ensuring it reflects the community’s needs.
Step 5: Expert Review and Analysis
Traffic safety experts, including urban planners and road engineers, review the proposal’s technical aspects, such as the placement of speed bumps, signage, and crosswalks. They assess the feasibility of the proposed measures and provide a rough cost estimate, considering materials, labour, and any potential savings.
Step 6: Community Reassessment
The revised proposal, now enhanced with expert feedback and cost estimates, is presented back to the community for reassessment. This phase allows the community to weigh the expert recommendations against budget priorities and discuss the project’s financial viability.
Step 7: Preparation for Voting
The final proposal is prepared for the public vote. All relevant information, including expert analysis and cost implications, is clearly presented to ensure the community is well-informed. Notifications are sent out to community members, reminding them of the upcoming voting period.
Step 8: Public Vote
The community votes on the proposal through an online platform. Blockchain technology ensures the integrity of the voting process, guaranteeing that each vote is securely recorded and tamper-proof. The proposal is accepted if it receives a simple majority of affirmative votes.
Step 9: Vote Outcome
Once voting concludes, the results are tallied and announced to the community. If the proposal is approved, it moves forward to the implementation phase, which involves detailed planning, budget allocation, and the execution of the road safety measures as mandated by the community.
Step 10: Implementation
The approved road safety measures are implemented, with regular updates provided to the community on the progress. The community’s involvement continues as they monitor the effectiveness of the changes and provide feedback on the impact of the improvements.
Real World Example 2: Community Green Spaces
To further illustrate the flexibility of the proposal process, consider a proposal focused on creating community green spaces.
Step 1: Proposal Submission
A group of residents submits a proposal to convert an underused lot into a community garden and green space. The proposal includes the benefits of such a space, including environmental sustainability, improved mental health for residents, and increased community engagement.
Step 2: Initial Verification
The proposal is verified to ensure it aligns with the community’s environmental goals and adheres to submission guidelines.
Step 3: Random Committee Review
A committee of residents reviews the proposal, providing feedback on aspects like accessibility and potential challenges in maintaining the garden. They also suggest additional features, such as a children’s play area.
Step 4: Community Discussion and Feedback
The proposal is discussed in an online forum, where residents express their excitement and concerns. Suggestions for volunteer management and community events are added.
Step 5: Expert Review and Analysis
Landscape architects and environmental experts review the proposal, offering advice on plant selection, soil health, and water conservation methods. They provide a cost estimate and outline the steps needed to transform the lot.
Step 6: Community Reassessment
The proposal is reassessed with expert feedback and revised accordingly. The community discusses the final version and its alignment with other local projects.
Step 7: Preparation for Voting
The final proposal, now including expert recommendations and a clear implementation plan, is prepared for voting.
Step 8: Public Vote
The community votes on the proposal, and it passes with a significant majority.
Step 9: Vote Outcome and Implementation
The community garden project moves into the implementation phase, with local volunteers and experts leading the transformation.
Step 10: Implementation
The garden is created, with community members actively participating in planting and maintaining the space. Regular events are held to keep the community engaged and ensure the space remains a vibrant part of the neighborhood.
Conclusion
The proposal process in a Decentralised Autonomous Government (DAG) is central to its democratic function, allowing community members to actively shape their environment.
By integrating steps for proposal submission, community discussion, expert analysis, and public voting, this potential process ensures that every proposal is carefully considered, refined, and implemented in a way that benefits the entire community.
The inclusion of incentives like cryptocurrency, reputation scores, and badges further encourages active participation, fostering a vibrant and engaged community.
As DAGs continue to evolve, processes like these will be key to maintaining fairness, transparency, and collective decision-making.
