BDIP-2: Article IV - Rule Making Process for Internal

Article IV - Rule Making Process for Internal

This section will detail the creation of internal processes that allow the Proposal Jury to have regulation.

Section 1. Internal Rule Proposal Process

  1. At any point, there will be scenarios in which other internal regulations will need to be proposed. This will be done internally, with an initial proposal being dignified by a discussion within the Proposal Jury Telegram Group for record.
  2. Any member of the Proposal Jury is able to propose any form of amendment or revision, provided that they are supported by one other member of the Jury in order to validate their proposed change. Repeals will require a majority vote of the Jury to bring to the proposal stage.
  3. The Proposal Jury will discuss via a working meeting which will be recorded in order to keep as data for future changes.
  4. Amendments will only require a majority vote, while revisions and repeals will require unanimous decision to move forward with.
  5. Said decisions will come into effect once DAO voters are made aware. In the case of amendments and repeals which will require formal proposals from internal, these must pass the standard process of proposals and win on votes in order to qualify. Said vote must meet a minimum 20% threshold of the overall voter pool with a majority for approval in order to qualify.

Section 2. Amendments and revisions (supplemental rules only)

  1. Amendments are classified as small structural changes, either in correction of particular clauses or clarity within guidelines. These will only require an internal vote within the Proposal Jury with a majority vote to qualify.
  2. Revisions are classified as large structural changes, either in modification of full sections or articles that would alter the article or section to an extent no longer representative of its previous meaning. These will require an internal unanimous vote before being passed to bear as a formal proposal.

Section 3. Repeal

  1. Repeals are defined as the removal of entire sections or articles of the Internal Rules or Guidelines due to fundamental issues that either harm or no longer provide benefit to the integrity of the IRG or the Proposal Jury.
  2. Voting will require a unanimous decision before being passed to bear as a formal proposal.

Section 4. Guidelines on interpretation in case of doubts and conflicts

  1. The DAOstitution provides the latent definition of what is or is not possible within IRGs. Conflicts or doubts will require the Proposal Jury to review the related article and attempt to understand the definition in relation to the issue at hand.
  2. Rules that have been more established and already previously set will take priority over newer rules due to the context being already established.
  3. However, should there be an issue with doubt regarding particular rules, the one with more specific nuance will be considered to have more credibility with respect to the issue as compared to more general ones.
1 Like

I like how section 4A describes that in any conflict or doubt, a review will be conducted by the jury. This can help us in so many ways. Nice catch on that!

I totally agree on that. Always for the betterment. Getting better and better everyday.

1 Like

Yes, I can tell that the team is really working hard to get us to success, thinking of ways that will benefit the project and us.

I like how the section 3 puts light on the issues or situations that no longer is beneficial to everyone. This retains a lot of good things and ensure that we are progressive.

Detailed information. That’s good!

Amendments and revisions will always be a part of any constitutions/daostitutions. That being mentioned in this article clearly shows its relevance throughout the DAO future processes. :+1:

I agree! That is inevitable and seeing revisions are actually a good indicator that there are some upgrade/improvements

I am sure that there will be a lot more improvements in the future. They are already detailing the processes that will benefit the community.

A regulation system this is good especially for those that needs immediate attentions from the jury.

We can see that they are really thinking ahead. What I mean is they know that not everything goes well in the first step, so reinforcement must always be prepared. I liked how polished the proposal they want it to be.