I wanted to share the draft charter and accompanying proposal for the Governance Committee on Secret Network:
The Governance Committee exists to promote transparent collaboration within the network and provide neutral discussions on proposals, voting, and governance issues. We work closely together with validators and other committees to ensure optimal support for the overarching Secret Network goals. It is vital to provide a space where thoughts and ideas can freely and respectfully be exchanged by anyone within the Secret Network to aid in reaching informed consensus on-chain.
As always, your constructive input and feedback on the above charter is appreciated. Please feel free to leave comments directly in the Google Doc or here in forum!
The proposal looks good, and appreciate your work so far.
One thing i would like to clarify is that, you mention that the governance leeds would be neutral on the charter. But does this apply to on chain governance as well? Since you run a validator, woukd that raise potential conflicts of interests?
Otherwise the other points look good and fully support your proposal.
This is a good point, I’m planning to Abstain on proposals moving forward. Neutrality is one of most important aspects of the governance charter in my opinion, and this seems to be the most robust solution to prevent potential conflicts of interests.
That is also why “Remain neutral, abstain on proposals, and do not lobby, voice opinions publicly, or argue for specific stances.” is the first bullet point under Governance Committee Chair(s) Responsibilities.
But what about proposals that are technical implementations like 'IBC upgrad’e for example would that be a yes? What if it was a debated topic on the governance channel would that be something you vote to abstain on?
Also from a network standpoint is it good to have a validator just vote Abstain moving forward?
Anyways just some questions and concerns, that should be thought of.
I’ve had a quick call with Mohammed earlier tonight and we’re actually quite aligned on this topic but still wanted to reply here for transparency’s sake.
I’m in principle open to not abstaining on technical implementations / network upgrades like IBC, however it could become a slippery slope.
So far all proposals have, to a degree at least, been mentioned or discussed on the governance calls, so I don’t think that would work as a threshold.
Ideally all validators vote on all proposals, but considering the current circumstances / voting behavior I don’t think having me vote Abstain for the coming 3 months poses any issues or will significantly influences the outcome of any proposals. The benefit of a neutral Governance chair in my opinion outweighs the current downside. That said, I do think it would be good process wise to discuss this in governance calls in the upcoming months.
Thanks for your feedback @orageux101, I understand your points but feel like the benefit to the Secret Network community at this moment is larger if I Abstain in the coming 3 months. Like I said above, I do think it would be good to discuss this topic in the coming months to see how we want to structure this in the future. In the interim, neutrality of the Governance chair backed by Abstain votes seems best to me at this point.