Voting period is a x/gov module parameter which specify the duration of a voting.
Currently it is set to 14 days (same as the Cosmos Hub).
I think this is very long, give the connectivity we have. I would like to propose to decrease it to 7 days. Arguments:
Will allow to react faster to the market events
Gear up towards more frequent updates
So far, our governance is not very active. Ideally we would like to have vivant governance.
Let me bring up Osmosis as an example. They released the chain in late spring 2021, and in 7 months they got 143 proposals. They decreased deposit fee to 500 Osmos (originally it was 2000 I believe) and they create an environment of frequent updates and more active community. Their voting period is 3 days.
Juno, another active Cosmos chain has voting period = 5 days.
I think 7 days is really long enough time for voting. In case of missing clarity or a need of further discussion, REGEN holders can always vote “no”.
I am open to either 5 or 7 day window. I’d love to hear any comments from our friends at Regen Foundation and validators I am curious to hear from @Chris / Chainflow@Will Szal .
Dave from LOA Labs validator here. I’m fine with 5 days, we just need good communications across all channels when gov proposals are up. IMO - Keplr’s interface still isn’t ideal for alerting token holders generally re: gov proposals.
We are also thinking about this for a quite a long now and Witval would support this proposal. For critical proposals we can use forum discussions before pushing them mainnet.
Yeah I agree with Dave and Gjis. I think it’s important we have a longer timeframe for land based communities and less tech involved folks are getting in on voting. 7 days sounds good.
We would support a proposal to reduce the voting period to 7-days. We would also support a reduction to 5-days, as long proposals are discussed with the community prior to being submitted on-chain.
Some thoughts:
7-days: seems the best “happy-medium” choice - especially when considering farmers and land stewards who maybe aren’t as active online and enterprises who simply have a lot going on. 5-days: long enough voting window provided there is a discussion period in advance. Maybe not long enough for the less active online community members or those who can only participate part time.
_**3-days: **_Too short. Even with the discussion period a 3-day voting period feels rushed. But this wasn’t really tabled as an option anyway.
I don’t feel that 14 days is particularly bad. It leaves enough time to process and respond thoughtfully to a proposal. I feel that, particularly in technology communities, the need for speed is overrated
I feel generally that 3-5 days is too short and while it increases governance velocity, it decreases governance quality. I think what we want to encourage is thoughtful, meaningful dialogue. Shortening the voting period from 14 days seems to be at least a partially artificial fix.
A two-vector approach could work well. It would incorporate a standard proposal and an emergency proposal.
The standard proposal goes through the usual 14 day period. The emergency proposal could go through a shortened period. The key to this approach is to make sure the emergency proposal isn’t used for non-emergency purposes. (This has happened on at least one network we used to support.)
That said, I could live with 7 days, yet feel it would be more interesting and hopefully beneficial to pioneer this two-vector approach within the Cosmos ecosystem.
I’m working on some basic guidelines for submitting and voting on proposals that will accompany a parameter change proposal to decrease the voting period to 7 days. It sounds like there are no major objections to 7 days but we need to be considerate of land-based communities and provide ample time for thoughtful, meaningful dialogue.
As Will pointed out, the voting period is not the same as the ideation and discussion phase and we should make it clear that a community discussion should happen in the governance forum before submitting a proposal on chain. The two vector approach Chris outlined also provides helpful framing.
Decreasing the voting period will allow us to push emergency proposals through in a shorter time frame (7 days) but all other proposals should go through a longer process that includes a forum post socializing the proposal at least one week prior to submitting the proposal (7 day minimum discussion period + 7 day voting period).
Happy to collaborate with anyone on these guidelines and we can iterate on them over time but I think it’s safe to move forward with the parameter change proposal to decrease the voting period to 7 days. I’ll try to get this going after the upgrade today to v3.0. Thank you everyone who participated in the discussion!
