Optimistic Respect Proposal System

Variables

• voting_period = 3 days;
• min_respect_threshold = 128 Respect;
• blocking_period =
• If this stage starts at least 2 days before the next weekly meeting then this period ends at the end of this meeting;
• If this stage starts with less than 2 days before the next weekly meeting then this period ends at the end of the meeting after next one;

Mechanism

1. To pass a proposal it has to go through 2 stages: first the “voting stage” and if it passes it, to the “blocking stage”;
2. In the voting stage a poll is created for a proposal with at least the “Yes”, “No” and “Abstain” options. This is “voting poll” and it lasts for voting_period. Votes are weighted by Respect of the voter;
3. If at the end of voting_period at least min_respect_threshold is voting for “Yes” and more than 2/3rds of all Respect voting on this poll are for “Yes”, then proposal advances to the blocking stage;
4. In the blocking stage a poll is created for the same proposal with the “Veto” option. This is “blocking poll” and it lasts blocking_period. Votes are weighted by Respect of the voter;
5. If at the end of blocking_period the total Respect weight of “Veto” votes on the “blocking poll” is at least half of the total weight of “Yes” votes in the “voting poll” then a proposal is rejected (but it can be resubmitted and go through the stages again). Otherwise, a proposal is passed;

Rationale

The motivation behind this mechanism is to tolerate majority of participants being passive, allowing proposals to be passed without having high voter participation, while also enabling a community to rally around to block any proposal fairly easily.

There’s a usually a big category of participants who are not proactive in governance decisions but are aware and would be able to react in case of contentious proposals being passed. The reason to block a proposal could simply be the perspective that proposal needs more consideration. So proactive governance participants could simply ask passive participant to “Veto” with an argument that “we need more discussion around this”. So passive voter would not need to understand the proposal fully to “Veto”, they would simply need to get a sense of it’s importance. This way we can utilize “passive but aware” category of participants for security thus avoiding reliance on any (typically arbitrary) quorum requirements and allowing organization to move forward even in cases of low voting turnout.

If we consider total turnout to be union of Respect voting in both stages then a one way to think about it, is that 2/3rds + 1 of turnout is able to pass a proposal (which means that 1/3rd of turnout is also able to block it). This is because 1/3rd is half of 2/3rds, so by requiring Veto votes to weight at least half of “Yes” votes we make it so that 1/3rd of active voters can block a proposal1.

1. Effectively this produces the same effect as in OREC.↩︎