Proposal for Retainer of TBD Ratifications

Proposal for Retainer of TBD Ratifications

Hi! I got anxious about having the time to read & respond to a recent and very exciting post by dandelion which led to this request for posts on Discourse by leadership not be assessed for rough consensus and ratified for “an amount of time” to allow for conversation and access.

Let’s say 7 days.

For 7 days after a post on Discourse is posted by a contributor with a leadership roll everyone has time to read, mull it over, potentially research further, ask questions, have & formulate an opinion without concern for that topic being ratified without their input.

The purpose of this proposal is to mitigate a sense of urgency around response time, allow for more inclusivity of contributors wanted to contribute to leadership proposals, and hopefully welcome more diversity in perspectives replying to posts of broad community interest.

There are many obstacles to participating in SourceCred - be them obstacles to text-based learning, screen fatigue, raising children, or depression to name a few. With a retainer in place, we have the potential to expand the number of contributors heard in the space. They have a chance to respond to a topic important to them by having time designated in which they can organize around environmental or internal conflicts better.

The 7 days begins not after the post is published, but after it has been publicized in Discord. The time can be altered if the parties involved are certain that that post does not need more airtime (i.e. it only affects that small group) but airing on the side of caution 7 days (or whatever we agree on) should be the norm.

I am not attached to 7 days and I welcome feedback.

Also if you have an answer to this please speak up: How long does it typically take for a proposal to be ratified after it is posted on Discourse?


This depends entirely on the proposal, TBH.

I think 7 days is good. We should also consider closing implemented proposals’ topics, so that any revising to them (post-consensus & implementation) has to take place in a new topic.

I like this overall. It’s a bit tricky because we don’t have an organized or documented governance process. So it’s not trivial to find all past governance decisions, or when exactly they were ratified.

In general, the major actions involving TBD powers have been the weights changes and grain payout changes, e.g. the posts below:

I’m happy to adopt a 7 day minimum comment period before enacting future non-emergency changes. Frankly, this would be great for me too, and I’m likely to make the comment period longer–it was stressful trying to land the most recent Cred Rebalancing on a tight self-imposed timeline.

I’m explicitly reserving the right to take swift emergency action, e.g. if an attacker is irreversibly absconding with large amounts of Grain, but hopefully that power won’t ever be invoked.

So, pending a more official governance process, consider this ratified as policy for how we’ll do non-emergency weight or grain changes going forward.


I appreciate if there are protective measures for the purposes of rebalancing. I want to reiterative the it’s 7 days minimum - so folks know they have at least that long but inherent in that action or response does not have to be taken at 7 days. Given that I see a culture of urgency so far in SC it didn’t occur to me to put a max number of days before ratification or reponse.