New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

AGP-1: The Aragon Governance Proposal Process #1

Merged
merged 16 commits into from Nov 12, 2018
Copy path View file
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
---
AGP: 1
Title: The Aragon Governance Proposal Process
Author: John Light (@john-light)
Status: Draft
Track: Meta
Created: 2018-10-12
---

# AGP-1: The Aragon Governance Proposal Process

**Version 1.0.5**

## What is an AGP?
AGP stands for Aragon Governance Proposal. An AGP is a document that details a change to the management, allocation, or use of shared resources owned or directly influenced by the Aragon Network. All AGPs must be consistent with the goals and values put forth in [AGP-0](AGP-0.md) (the Aragon Manifesto) and compliant with the requirements outlined in this document, AGP-1. The AGP author is responsible for building consensus within the community for their AGP and documenting dissenting opinions.

## AGP process rationale
The purpose of the Aragon Governance Proposal Process ("the AGP process") is to provide a structured process for making changes to the shared resources of the Aragon Network. For these shared resources, governance processes are needed to grant or deny access and approve or reject proposed changes. By creating a fair, lightweight, and transparent AGP process, the AGP-1 authors hope to give ANT holders a meaningful say in the governance of the Aragon Association and the Aragon Network and increase the chances of success for both.

## Proposal workflow
Parties directly involved in the process are the _AGP author_ (you), the _AGP Editors_, the _Aragon Association (鈥渢he Association鈥)_, and _Aragon Network voters_.

Proposals follow this workflow:

* Stage I: Select AGP Track
* Stage II: Pre-proposal
* Stage III: Work In Progress
* Stage IV: Draft Proposal
* Stage V: Final Proposal
* Stage VI: Aragon Network Vote

During Stage III-IV AGP Editors will review proposals for formatting, legibility, and compliance with AGP-1, referring to AGP-1 as the basis for accepting, denying, or requesting modifications to a proposal. The role of AGP Editors is further described in the AGP Editors section.

At a high level, the AGP-1 workflow looks like this:

![](../images/AGP-1/AGP-1_1.png)

### Stage I: Select AGP Track
Before you spend time working on a proposal, make sure the proposal complies with AGP-1 and has a chance of passing review by the AGP Editors and your peers. Review the AGP tracks and their requirements then select the track that you think is best for your proposal. If your proposal meets the requirements, it has a much greater chance of being accepted by AGP Editors and approved by Aragon Network voters.

There are four tracks that an AGP can be categorized into. Select the one you think is best for your AGP:

* Association: proposals for making changes to the Association
* Finance: proposals for transferring funds from the Association multisig
This conversation was marked as resolved by john-light

This comment has been minimized.

@aj07

aj07 Oct 17, 2018

Can't be this again divided into multiple steps.

This comment has been minimized.

@john-light

john-light Oct 17, 2018

Member

Such as?

This comment has been minimized.

@aj07

aj07 Oct 17, 2018

Payment will be released in multiple trans based out of outcome and that should be via multisig. Eventually, this will make system more robust.

This comment has been minimized.

@john-light

john-light Oct 17, 2018

Member

Right now the way this would work in practice is:

  1. Someone proposes transferring funds from the Association multisig to Project XYZ to develop an Aragon App.
  2. The proposal is approved in the ANT vote.
  3. The Association would execute the multisig transaction to transfer the funds.

Can you give an example of how your suggestion would change this flow?

This comment has been minimized.

@aj07

aj07 Oct 17, 2018

  1. Someone proposes transferring funds from the Association multisig to Project XYZ to develop an Aragon App.
  2. The proposal is approved in the ANT vote with multiple checkpoints
  3. The Association would execute the multisig transaction to transfer the funds when each checkpoints got achieved.

This comment has been minimized.

@john-light

john-light Oct 17, 2018

Member

I see what you mean now, thanks for clarifying. Right now full time teams will apply for one year of funding at a time (so they can better plan around hiring and other resource allocation) and Nest teams already have milestone-based funding. Having ANT holders vote on more granular milestone-based funding seems to me premature at this stage but it could evolve to this in the future. I'll leave this suggestion up for others to consider and comment on too :)

This comment has been minimized.

@lkngtn

lkngtn Oct 17, 2018

Member

I think its worth noting that a proposal could be made to fund an organization that operates like that. Whether it is the association or another organization (or multi-sig) that acts as a intermediary between ANT holders and fund recipients.

I also know that the Aragon DAC is very interested making the liquid pledging contracts fully compatible with Aragon Core, those contracts follow a similar principle of milestone based funding with a delegate (or multiple) sitting between the original funder and the funding recipient. So that may provide a really straightforward way for projects to make those types of proposals.

From the perspective of AGP1, I think it makes sense to not impose the restriction that all proposals are milestone based as I think it reduces flexibility and increases complexity without any significant gain (because milestone based proposals are already possible within the framework, and through the process ANT holders could simply only approve milestone based proposals.)

* Meta: proposals for changing AGP-0 or AGP-1 (鈥渃hanging the way things are changed鈥)
* Proclamations: proposals for making a public statement on behalf of the Aragon Network

Proposals that cannot be categorized into one of these tracks will likely be denied by AGP Editors. At the discretion of AGP Editors, a proposal may be categorized as 鈥淥ther鈥 until a new track is approved as part of a Meta AGP.

In addition to the requirement that all AGPs must be consistent with AGP-0, each track has its own requirements for AGPs as follows:

**Association**
Proposals made to the Association track must affect one or more of the following:

* Association-owned assets, excluding funds held in the [Association multisig](https://wiki.aragon.org/documentation/multisigs/foundation/)
* E.g. 鈥淪hould the Aragon trademark be dedicated to the public domain?鈥
* Association policies
* E.g. 鈥淪hould the Aragon Code of Conduct be updated to include a community-wide ban on Carlos Matos memes?鈥

**Finance**
Proposals made to the Finance track must affect the movement of assets held by the [Association multisig](https://wiki.aragon.org/documentation/multisigs/foundation/). The Association will have discretion over which multisig transfers must go through the AGP process.

* All code and content funded through the AGP process must be released under one of the following licenses:
* Creative Commons (CC0, CC-BY, CC-SA, CC-BY-SA)
* GPL
* AGPL
* MIT

**Meta**
Proposals made to the Meta track must affect changes to AGP-0 or AGP-1. The Association has the power to add and remove AGP Editors and fix errata in AGP-0 or AGP-1 on an as-needed basis without going through the AGP process. All other proposals to modify AGP-0 or AGP-1 should be made to the Meta track.
* E.g. 鈥淪hould the min. acceptance quorum of Aragon Network votes be increased?鈥

**Proclamations**
Proposals made to the Proclamations track must be consistent with the Aragon Manifesto.
* E.g. 鈥淭he Aragon Network declares February 10th to be Aragon Day.鈥

### Stage II: Pre-proposal
During Stage II you should seek feedback on your AGP idea by sharing it with your peers in the Aragon community and soliciting their feedback. Examples of appropriate venues to share your AGP idea include:

* The [#governance channel](https://aragon.chat/channel/governance) in Aragon Chat
* The [Community category](https://research.aragon.org/c/community) in the Aragon forum
* The [Issues section](https://github.com/aragon/governance/issues) of the [AGP repo](https://github.com/aragon/governance)

Be open-minded and respectful of all feedback you receive. Adjust your proposal to address serious concerns as they come up to increase the odds of your proposal passing review in later stages.

### Stage III: Work In Progress
After you have asked the Aragon community whether an idea has any chance of support and have received sufficient feedback to feel confident going forward, you can create a draft AGP as a pull request to the AGP repo. Use a template from the Template section below to ensure you are including all the necessary information.

* If agreeable, an AGP Editor will assign the AGP a number (generally the PR number related to the AGP), move the proposal from Stage III to Stage IV by updating the status in the AGP, and merge your pull request. The AGP Editor will not unreasonably deny an AGP Stage IV status.
* Reasons for denying Stage IV status include being too unfocused, too broad, duplication of effort, being technically unsound, not providing proper motivation or addressing concerns by reviewers, or not in compliance with AGP-1.

**Templates**
Below is a list of AGP templates for each track. Copy the template for the track your AGP is in, fill it out, and submit the pull request with your AGP for review. Sections marked as 鈥渞equired鈥 in the template must be completed. Note that all proposals must be licensed CC-0.

* Association
* Finance
* Meta
* Proclamations

### Stage IV: Draft Proposal
Once the first draft has been merged into the AGP repo, you may submit follow-up pull requests with further changes to your draft until such point as you believe the AGP to be mature and ready to proceed to Stage V. After a proposal in Stage IV has been thoroughly reviewed, you may request that an AGP Editor moves the proposal from Stage IV to Stage V.

* If agreeable, the AGP Editor will move the proposal from Stage IV to Stage V by updating the status in the AGP.
* A request to move the proposal from Stage IV to Stage V will be denied if material changes are still expected to be made to the draft. No changes can be made to an AGP while it is in Stage V or VI.

### Stage V: Final Proposal
An AGP in Stage V is the final version that will appear on the ballot during the next Aragon Network vote cycle. AGPs that move from Stage IV to Stage V are reviewed by the Aragon Association Board of Directors and, if approved during the pre-vote review session, are added to the list of AGPs that will be submitted to the Aragon Network for a vote. Approval or rejection of an AGP during Stage V is made at the discretion of the Association board.

The Association board review session **begins** two weeks before the next Aragon vote cycle is scheduled to begin and **ends** one week before the next vote cycle is scheduled to begin.

### Stage VI: Aragon Network Vote
All AGPs that have moved to Stage V since the last Aragon Network vote cycle and have been approved by the Association board are included on the ballot in the current vote cycle. During the vote cycle, Aragon Network voters will review proposals on the ballot and cast their votes.

If a vote on an AGP produces a Rejected result, then the AGP must revert to Stage IV or be withdrawn by the author. If a vote on an AGP produces an Approved result, then the AGP will either be executed automatically by the Aragon Network or else dutifully executed by a manager designated in the AGP (or designated by the Association board if no manager is designated in the AGP).

The result of the Aragon Network vote will be recorded in the corresponding AGP file by an agent of the Aragon Association.

## Aragon Network Vote Cycles
Aragon Network vote cycles take place quarterly on the following days, starting at 00:00 UTC time and lasting for 48 hours:

* Third Thursday of January
* Third Thursday of April
* Third Thursday of July
* Third Thursday of October

During each vote cycle a Meta proposal will be voted on to maintain the current frequency of vote cycles. If ANT holders vote 鈥淣o鈥 then that will indicate that a Meta proposal to adjust the frequency may be needed during the next vote cycle.

**Support required**
With the exception of Meta track proposals, the minimum support required for approval is >50% of all votes cast, an 鈥渁bsolute majority鈥. The minimum acceptance quorum required for approval is >0% (at least one positive vote needs to be cast). Votes are token-weighted, so 10^-18 ANT (the smallest possible fraction of one ANT) equals one vote, and at least 10^-18 ANT is required to vote.

For Meta track proposals, the minimum support required for approval is >66.6666666666666666% of all votes cast, a 鈥渟upermajority鈥. The minimum acceptance quorum required for approval is >0% (at least one positive vote needs to be cast). Votes are token-weighted, so 10^-18 ANT (the smallest possible fraction of one ANT) equals one vote, and at least 10^-18 ANT is required to vote.

**Emergency Vote**
The Association can call an emergency Aragon Network vote at any time with minimum 48 hours notice by a unanimous approval vote of the Association board. In case of emergency, immediately following approval by the board, the Association will make a best effort to notify ANT holders of the vote using these communication channels:

* Aragon [email newsletter](https://one.us15.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=a590aa3843a54b079d48e6e18&id=e81a44c4bd)
* [#announcements channel](https://aragon.chat/channel/announcements) in Aragon Chat
* [@AragonProject](https://twitter.com/aragonproject) Twitter account
* [Aragon Project](https://www.linkedin.com/company/aragonproject/) LinkedIn account
* [/r/AragonProject](https://www.reddit.com/r/aragonproject/) subreddit

## AGP Editors
AGP Editors are experienced and active members of the Aragon community selected by the Association to manage the AGP workflow. AGP Editors are not gatekeepers to the proposal system. AGP Editors exist to make proposals submitted to the AGP repo easier to review.

AGP Editors have two responsibilities:

* Review proposals
* Move proposals from Stage III through to Stage V

**Review proposals**
AGP Editors review proposals and accept, deny, or request modifications to them based on formatting, legibility, and compliance with AGP-1.

**Move proposals from Stage III through to Stage V**
After a proposal author submits a pull request with their proposal in Stage III, an AGP Editor will review the proposal to make sure it is compliant with AGP-1. If so, the AGP Editor will move the AGP to Stage IV by merging the author鈥檚 pull request in the AGP repo and assigning the proposal an AGP number. After a proposal in Stage IV has been thoroughly reviewed, the author can request that an AGP Editor moves the proposal from Stage IV to Stage V.

The current AGP Editors are:

* Luke Duncan ([@lkngtn](https://github.com/lkngtn))
* John Light ([@john-light](https://github.com/john-light))

## History
This document borrows from [Ethereum鈥檚 EIP-1](https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-1.md) written by Martin Becze and Hudson Jameson, which itself was derived from [Bitcoin's BIP-0001](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki) written by Amir Taaki, which in turn was derived from [Python's PEP-0001](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/). In many places text was simply copied and modified. Although the PEP-0001 text was written by Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger, they are not responsible for its use in the Aragon Governance Process, and should not be bothered with governance questions specific to Aragon or the AGP process. Please direct all comments and questions to the AGP Editors.

## License
Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).
Copy path View file
Binary file not shown.
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I hereby confirm that, as a Board Member of the Aragon Association, agree to proposing AGP-1 (with hash 8127978c13b5db4d32064f0ab3adf1d544a002d3cc6af915ffa4b7629da1d1fa) to be voted under an Aragon Network vote starting Thursday, November 15th at 00:00 UTC, and lasting for 48 hours
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=+xA/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I hereby confirm that, as a Board Member of the Aragon Association, agree to proposing AGP-1 (with hash 8127978c13b5db4d32064f0ab3adf1d544a002d3cc6af915ffa4b7629da1d1fa) to be voted under an Aragon Network vote starting Thursday, November 15th at 00:00 UTC, and lasting for 48 hours
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=0LUj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
@@ -0,0 +1 @@

ProTip! Use n and p to navigate between commits in a pull request.