Visit our forum post here
OG Tracker is a common-good tool designed to track deliverables and the ongoing progress of approved OpenGov proposals on Polkadot.
The app has been live for three months and has already received huge support and a warm reception from the community.
The primary objective is to enhance the overall experience and accountability of OpenGov and establish transparency reports and other common practices as the standard.
This discussion aims to explore the most equitable and optimal approach regarding the extension of deadline - duration for approved proposals.
The deadline-duration represents the expected timeframe for a proposal to be fully completed and delivered (is initially established by the proposers on their original referendum).
However, there are instances where proposers might miscalculate the scope of their work or encounter unforeseen challenges and obstacles that result in delays.
While such occurrences could be considered normal and can arise for various reasons, it is essential to determine whether these delays are acceptable to the majority of the community.
Furthermore, this discussion seeks to gather the community’s feedback and reach consensus on how to address deadline extensions in a fair and systematic manner.
Given that OpenGov is still in a very early stage, we decided to maintain a flexible approach during the first months of our operations.
When a proposer provides a clear and valid explanation for the delays, we extend the proposal’s duration and explain the situation to the Polkadot community in the OGT Review section.
a) The maximum extension period for a proposal is capped at two months.
b) A proposal’s duration can be extended only once.
c) If the deliverables are not met within this extended timeframe, the proposal will be flagged
Note 1: The above method is commonly followed but not the standard, as each proposal is unique and may require different treatment.
Note 2: Currently, the OG Tracker team is responsible for making these decisions based on what we consider fair and reasonable but in the end it’s up to the Polkadot community to decide.
On May 9th, we conducted a poll on X (Twitter) to get a first taste of the community’s perspective on our current tactics and approach to deadline extension.
The options and results were as follows:
-Keep Current Approach: 38.7%
-Be More Strict: 47.9%
-Be More Flexible: 13.4%
With over 140 votes, the majority opinion favors reducing the extension period or even eliminating it entirely.
However, maintaining our current approach also received significant support.
It’s important to highlight that this was just a temperature check and the poll alone is insufficient to determine our next steps but community’s input is always highly considered and appreciated.
1. A shorter extension period highly encourages proposers to have more discipline after approval and better planning before submission.
2. Proposers are more accountable for their timelines, knowing they have less flexibility for delays.
3. Enhances trust as it demonstrates commitment and proper management to timely proposal completion while increasing confidence within the community.
4. Decreases the likelihood of complacency as proposers remain highly dedicated and steadily progressing towards full delivery.
1. Insufficient time to handle and tackle effectively unexpected challenges, especially those involving third parties or complex components.
2. Risk of rushed deliverables as proposers might become sloppy to their work to meet the deadline duration, compromising the quality of the final deliverables.
3. The psychological pressure of meeting the deadline duration without full completion could discourage proposers from completing their promises.
4. Lack of appreciation and repeatedly failing to complete the expected deliverables, even on a 2-month extension.
Note 3: Please feel free to add any further pros or cons in the comment section.
We suggest reducing the extension period to one month.
Completely eliminating the extension period is impractical, as it would likely result in a significant number of proposals being flagged and realistically is not a reasonable nor fair approach on that matter. Additionally, delays are sometimes caused by third parties and are not the fault of the proposers.
We believe it is more beneficial for the ecosystem to prioritise the quality of delivered proposals and provide an optional, less flexible extension policy after communicating with involved parties and examining the reasons a push back took place.
a) Only upon proposer’s request, the maximum extension period for a proposal is capped to 1 month.
b) A proposal’s duration can be extended only once.
c) If the deliverables are not met within this extended timeframe, the proposal will be immediately flagged.
Note 4: Please remember that each proposal is unique and requires a different approach. From our side, we remain neutral, and act solely based on factual information and data that is stated in the original proposal!
Everyone should focus on delivering within their initial established deadline-duration!
Time management is a valuable skill and can be considered a crucial component for even directing the final outcome of a proposal during the decision period.
It’s the proposer’s responsibility to carefully and properly plan everything before submitting a proposal on OpenGov, especially since the entire requested funds are provided in advance.
We are seeking everyone’s feedback and suggestions on this topic before implementing any new changes. Ultimately, the decision will be made by the majority of stakeholders and their collective valuable input on what is best for the network.
Thank you!