[Discussion][RGP-24] Governance Improvements Proposal 2.0

This is a draft proposal that is seeking feedback from the community! It is intended to go through the March proposal cycle.

Author(s): @shelb_ee @abbey
Type: social
Created: 2024-03-11
Status: active


This is a Social Proposal to gain consensus around proposed changes to the monthly proposal cycles and proposal types outlined in the Radworks Governance Manual.


The proposed updates are made by the Governance Committee and are based on feedback collected in the Governance Feedback Survey and learnings gathered throughout the last year. These updates aim to improve our monthly proposal cycles by clarifying expectations of proposal authors, introducing more time for feedback and proposal revision, and reducing overhead during the proposal review process. We have a lot more improvements to make but wanted to introduce a couple that we believe will improve our monthly proposal cycles for everybody.

Proposed Changes: (see Reasoning & Analysis section below for more details)

  • Require proposals to be posted on the first Monday of the monthly proposal cycle, rather than the second.
  • Move the monthly Proposal Review call to the second Monday of each month, instead of the second Wednesday.
  • Update names of proposal process phases: change “Discussion” phase to “Request for Feedback (RFF)” phase
  • Remove “Consensus” as a proposal type

Over the past few weeks the Governance Committee has revised the Governance Manual to provide additional clarifications and expectations for proposal authors on the existing governance process. We have also created additional templates for proposal authors to streamline their experience moving proposals through governance. These changes do not require a Social Proposal to implement, as they are improving resources that support the existing process.

The proposed changes outlined above, however, would change various aspects of the proposal process and monthly cycles. Therefore, they require community approval to implement. Since the proposed changes are all off-chain, this proposal only requires off-chain approval.


If this proposal passes, the Governance Committee will be responsible for updating the relevant documentation, including:

:point_right: Updating the Proposal Process, Proposal Cycles, and Proposal Review sections of the Governance Manual

:point_right: Removal of the Consensus Proposal from the template library and from the Proposal Types section of the Governance Manual

These changes are captured in the follow two pull requests which will be merged upon community approval:

Current Proposal Cycle:

Proposal Cycle Including Proposed Changes:

Reasoning & Analysis

Proposed Changes

Change 1: Require “Proposals Discussions” to be posted under Proposal Drafts on the first Monday of the monthly proposal cycle, rather than the second.

  • Reasoning: We’ve received a lot of feedback that proposal authors and community members need more time to discuss and review proposals. Requiring proposals to be submitted earlier will give proposal authors more time to receive and implement feedback before the Proposal Review call.

Change 2: Move the monthly Proposal Review call to the second Monday of each month, instead of the second Wednesday.

  • Reasoning: Sometimes it’s easier to discuss feedback and changes during the Proposal Review call vs. on the forum. Moving the Proposal Review call to Monday allows proposal authors a full week to incorporate any feedback or address any issues raised in these calls before moving into the Formal Review the week after.

Change 3: Update names of proposal process phases: change “Discussion” phase to “Request for Feedback (RFF)” phase

  • Reasoning: Discussions on proposals are ongoing, and they often remain on the forum for deliberation beyond the initial two weeks of a proposal cycle. During this governance phase, the primary need for proposal authors is feedback from the community. To clarify this request and differentiate it from general proposal discussion, we suggest renaming this phase to the “Request for Feedback” phase.

Change 4: Remove “Consensus” as a proposal type.

  • Reasoning: The Social proposal and Consensus are very similar. This proposal type has also not yet been used by the community, and in order to simplify the options, we propose to remove this proposal type.

Next Steps

In your comments, we request that you express your support or disagreement with each proposed change. If a particular change receives widespread disapproval or disagreement, we will exclude it from the final proposal.

If there are any other additional changes to the governance process or resources you would like to suggest, please drop them below. While the Governance Committee is responsible for continuing to improve Radworks’ governance processes, anyone is welcome to submit Social Proposals suggesting additional improvements to the governance process or resources. Please see this contributing.md for more details.

Hey folks, I’ve got a small nitpick/advice on this.

Across multiple different worldwide communities, scientific, engineering, etc the common term for this is “Request for Comment”. And while that doesn’t seem like much of an improvement, the acronym “RFC” is something I’d instantly recognize whereas RFF I’d have no clue what it means.


That’s a good point! I think we went with “Feedback” originally as that is the language we tend to use when referring to governance proposals, but considering we will probably be using the acronym a lot, it might be better to go with a more “universal” acronym.

1 Like

Thanks to everyone who joined the Proposal Review call last night! :seedling: :writing_hand:

:video_camera: Here is the link to the recording. The presentation and discussion around this proposal starts at minute 34:57. See video description for detailed timestamps.

There were no additional questions or comments raised on this proposal during the call.

Before moving into Formal Review on Monday, I am curious to hear from past and current proposal authors what they think of the first two proposed changes (move deadline to submit proposals for cycle to first Monday, move PR call to second Monday). @lftherios @cloudhead @ange @bordumb @yorgos ?

Do these changes resonate? Do see any potential issues with them?

Hi Shelby,

The first two changes

resonate with me. I am in support of creating more time for incorporating feedback after the PR call.

Also, I generally appreciate your ability to capture the questions/answers/comments from the calls and bringing them in the forum. Thanks, @shelb_ee !


Change 1: :+1:
Change 2: :+1:
Change 3: I’d prefer “Discussion” (or “RFC” over “RFF”)
Change 4: :+1:

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback @ange and @yorgos !

The proposed changes make sense to me. Thanks @shelb_ee.

1 Like