The transcript is from a Cello governance call, specifically focused on the governance working group. The participants discuss the agenda and action items from the previous call and introduce new proposals. They express appreciation for Will’s contributions and offer him an opportunity to present his proposals.
Will shares his work on proposal templates and documentation structure. He presents two categories of documents: potential GitHub documentation structure and broader governance discussion documents. The GitHub documentation structure is meant to align with existing documentation styles, while the broader governance discussion documents include social media post and medium post templates, as well as a governance voting primer.
The participants appreciate Will’s work and acknowledge its value in clarifying roles, actors, and the purpose of governance. They discuss the scope of the working group and suggest creating a private Discord channel for the group’s communication. They emphasize the importance of making governance documentation more accessible to the wider community.
The participants briefly discuss potential governance Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the need for more accessible governance documentation for the general community. They mention plans for a meta-governance working group and the need to address issues with proposal IDs and communication with the community.
There is a discussion about obfuscating proposal IDs to avoid coordination challenges between on-chain and off-chain correspondences. They consider different labeling mechanisms and propose a content-derived ID or a hash-based solution. The participants also discuss the feasibility of having separate GitHub tickets to address different behaviors.
The participants mention Governance 2.0 and 3.0 as potential approaches to address the issues discussed. They highlight the importance of a roadmap and express hope that Governance 3.0 will be implemented more efficiently than the previous version.
Elizabeth and Ronan volunteer to be CGP (Celo Governance Proposal) editors, with a focus on community participation. They express enthusiasm for involving external community members in the editing process and encourage others to join as well.
The participants briefly discuss the governance lifecycle, focusing on the approval stage and potential revisions. They mention the role of approvers, the ability to revoke approvals, and the dynamics surrounding changes in decisions. They consider adding features such as revoking approvals before voting starts and allowing approvers to veto bills even after voting.