CWIP Process (Extended)
Proposal Stage 1: Draft
Community members know best what is preventing them from achieving Zero Waste recycling performance. After identifying the challenge, reputable, verified members can write a CIP where, after moderator approval, the proposal is publicized. Moderators look for adequate information and, most importantly, violations to community guidelines. Encroachment on either will result in rejection of the draft with recommendation for improvement. This eliminates spam and potentially harmful content while improving proposal quality.
CIPs should include just enough information to gauge the interest of the Carrot DAO members. Approved CIPs which receive a significant level of interest from the community will be moved on for the discussion phase. Significant interest is defined as a threshold in a function of the moving average of users' engagement with draft proposals within a period of time. Simultaneously, while waiting for interest, members will flag predatory and/or harmful proposals with comments to draw attention from a moderator. When this occurs, the proposal author’s reputation metric is affected if confirmed to be harmful by moderators and the CIP may be removed by a centralized moderation team.
Proposal Stage 2: Initial Discussion
DAOs with high volumes of dense, specialized activity in the early approval process, generally causes reduced participation. Therefore proposals are filtered, discussed, and amended before they are put on the blockchain. The presence of significant interest indicates a ZWIP should move on to official discussion forums without need of centralized moderation. A discussion channel for the proposal will be opened by moderators in Discord. They will provide a summary of development points to spur continued discussion and ensure all discussion is kept within community guidelines as with all other channels.
Once the proposal-specific debate channel goes live, the ZWIP is assigned an official designation under the format “ZWIP (#) (Category): Title: (Title)”. During the debate the author will create amendment threads. These will add/edit/remove tasks and elements on the ZWIP and will finalize the ‘Solution Steps’ section that the debating community agrees are required while keeping record of changes. After this is finished, the author must deliver an estimated cost.
Once the author is satisfied that the proposal is ready, they will mark it as such and a moderator will submit it to a centralized moderation team at the ZWDAO. If a ZWIP’s discussion has stagnated, the moderation team will archive it. A centralized list of links to archived proposals will be maintained for ease of reference and inspiration. ZWIPs can be revived in cases where the author had abandoned the project or interest was lost. Ideas in the community do not belong to any one individual. Collaboration and compounded contribution is the best way to move proposals forward and accelerate change in the real world.
Proposal Stage 3: The Improvement Cycle
In order to ensure community resources are protected and optimally utilized a centralized body at the ZWDAO will review finalized ZWIPs. Using a standard rubric, the centralized moderators will issue a list of improvements, categorized as ‘suggestion’ or ‘requirement.” Suggestions move through the debate process to be accepted/rejected, but requirements must be accommodated. Requirements are only issued for preservation of community values and guidelines.
The budget, execution plan, conflicts of interest, legality, possible blind spots, and the participants are all analyzed. Changes are collated into the returned list posted to the re-opened discussion. This cycle can run multiple times to include the more organizationally skilled contributors in the discussion in a way that does not undermine the democratic control of the ZWDAO. Following a final review the ZWIP is moved to the DAO for a community vote.
Proposal Stage 4: DAO Vote
CIP voting will occur through Snapshot, an IPFS decentralized storage system, or similar application, like Tally (when on-chain voting will take over). Like Discord, Snapshot uses an off-chain signing system. Voting does not require the typical movement of funds into escrow, and therefore is fee-less. CIPs are introduced together via Snapshot on a periodic basis: weekly, monthly or quarterly. If approved, a CIP moves to the Carrot Fndn for implementation. If not approved, due to a majority vote of “no” or in the case of a tie, the CIP is archived.
In the event that there are two conflicting proposals, moderators will hold the latest until a decision is made on the first, before posting the second to Snapshot. If there is too low of a turnout for a vote, then the vote is postponed to the next voting event. Inadequate volume will be defined as a low threshold of the function of the moving average of engagement over previous votes. This ensures that the necessary democratic scrutiny is exercised on a proposal before implementation.
Proposal Stage 5: Implementation
The project management team employed by the Carrot Fndn executes the CIP along its timeline and cost. Updates are posted to the Carrot Fndn website and social media channels regarding projects that involve Community Funds or corporate partnerships. Quick, low budget proposals or procedural changes to governance are implemented immediately. The community will be able to see their work taking action.
If a CIP moves over budget or looks as if it will, the Carrot Fndn or External Service Providers (ESP) will provide an explanation as to why this occurred, as well as a report explaining the sunk cost and additional required resources. This will be posted to Snapshot directly and the Carrot DAO will decide to pursue or abandon the project.
Any past proposals are recorded with details about the process they went through on the website as well as in data about the ways in which holder wallets interacted with them.
Proposal Stage 6: Review
After implementation, the CIP must be reviewed. This is to gather data on the success of the project as well as to inform the community on the quality of the user/organization providing the service. Success will be defined as the achievement of targets initially set by the Carrot Fndn Stewards and then amended by the Carrot DAO Board later on. Primarily these will focus on ROI but depending on the goal of the CIP could also target user onboarding, increased capture of certain MassIDs or a number of other success criteria. When fully decentralized, the CIP author will set the success criteria with a justification and submit that for approval during the draft or initial discussion phase.
Last updated
