GIP-109: Should the GnosisDAO introduce Snapshot moderators to reduce spam?

[john_szczepaniak]

GIP-109: Should the GnosisDAO introduce Snapshot moderators to reduce spam?

• In Favour
• Against

GIP: 109
title: Should the GnosisDAO introduce Snapshot moderators to reduce spam?
author: John Szczepaniak
status: Draft
type: Meta
created: 2024-07-10

Category

Governance

Executive Summary

The Gnosis DevOps team is currently performing a review and overhaul of the GnosisDAO’s Snapshot space. We would like to add trusted moderators that have the ability to remove posts that they deem to be low-quality with the goal of reducing spam proposals created in the GnosisDAO’s snapshot space.

For security reasons, the GnosisDAO Snapshot space does not have Admins. In order to introduce moderation, the GnosisDAO needs to grant the DevOps team permission to modify the Snapshot settings.

Adding trusted moderators was originally proposed in GIP-77, which never went to Snapshot for onchain voting.

This GIP proposes to elect the following moderators: Manuel Bondy, Armagan Ercan, and John Szczepaniak who are trusted contributors of the GnosisDAO.

GIP-77: Should the GnosisDAO add delegation & spam reduction?

GIP: 77 title: Should the GnosisDAO add delegation & spam reduction? author: Gnosis Guild status: Draft type: Meta created: 2023-01-20 poll Simple Summary This proposal aims to introduce a number of changes to GnosisDAO’s governance setup which will: Reduce low-quality and spam proposals created in the GnosisDAO’s snapshot space. Make GnosisDAO’s influence distribution less opaque. Improve vote-weight utilization. Abstract Broadly, this proposal aims to introduce two changes: Modify the …

Moderation guidelines are taken from A Code of Conduct for Open Source Communities, a widely recognized code of conduct that empowers groups to facilitate healthy, constructive community behavior .

[refri]

haven’t noticed too much spam lately on our snapshot space but for sure it can become an issue again. Having trusted entities seems fine for me but anyway I would put some limitations in this, like being able to remove only posts from addresses with a low amount of GNO (maybe below 10?) or an obligation to post the removed topics along with a short reasoning here.

[staworth]

We fully agree with @refri here. The proposal seems sensible, even if spam is currently relatively low. But some reasonable process would be appreciated to tackle the possibility for unwarranted censuring.

…or an obligation to post the removed topics along with a short reasoning here.

The idea of posting removed proposals and the reasoning for their removal is attractive. The additional time/cost would hopefully be fairly minimal. Other actors in the DAO (e.g. delegates) could then provide a feedback loop by occasional reviews/spot checks, to balance the power awarded to moderators.

We would however advise flexibility. Spammers often post the same or very similar proposals many times over, in which case moderators should not also have to duplicate their efforts. In general, we advocate for strong, clear principles for moderation, lightly held to adapt to ever-changing circumstances.

[john_szczepaniak]

thank you for the feedback @refri and @staworth ! I will add your edits to the proposal.

[coltron.eth]

I highly support this proposal and implementing the Snapshot roles available.

Although I don’t see spam being our primary issue, Snapshot roles are used in many other spaces and allow granular permissions to manage the space without requiring a payload to be passed through a DAO vote.

The permissions available to these roles are explained in the Snapshot Docs.

I understand the importance of requiring substantive changes to go through the GnosisDAO governance mechanism, but this rigidity is has downsides. For example, [GIP-101] is currently stalled because there is no way to bypass the current Basic Voting strategy that is defined in the snapshot settings. With an author or moderator role, we likely could avoid a DAO-wide vote or blanket change to voting methods available.

@john_szczepaniak Would love to see this implemented and highly support. What would the next steps be, and would there be any required technical support from the Gnosis Guild??