The Governance Operations Working Group will endeavor to identify gaps in established governance processes and proactively endeavor to gain clarity as questions arise. The GOWG’s highest priority is flawlessly executing on the governance processes in place - any ambiguity in the process is a blocker - so let’s dive in:
Acknowledging that the appropriate number in cases may even be ‘0’, does the acceptable number change by governance process type (IIP, DG1, DG2)? In the case of meta-governance the process following a quorum-miss is well-established with the MGC stepping-in to vote. While contemplated as a temporary measure, the Q4 WG formation process drafted by @gregdocter framed quorum (in this case the number of voters) as a passing threshold, immediately indicating that a failure to hit quorum indicates a failure of the proposal to pass overall. Other governance processes are not as explicit.*
Historically, quorum-misses on IIPs have been fair game for at least 1 rerun; this may be considered essential to operations. For DG1 quorum may be considered an alternate gauge of product-market interest and reruns considered another bite at the same apple; same for DG2. In an effort to crystalize what appears to be a gap in the current governance process, please share your thoughts and links to any precedent or resources that will inform this discussion. Please feel free to differentiate by process if appropriate (IIP, DG1, DG2).
Acknowledging that there are discussions around governance happening as part of the Index 2.0 initiatives, and that ‘quorum’ is just one of many mechanisms that can be used to craft a governance model that is effective; the goal of this post is to gain clarity. Your feedback is a gift; thank you. Once discussion gets going I’ll drop in some temp-check polls if appropriate and discussion here may inform some forthcoming ‘housekeeping IIPs’.