Thank you for your detailed and specific feedback, @yomfana You’ve raised substantive concerns that deserve direct answers rather than general responses. Let us address each one:
You’re raising a fair point. Procedural gatekeeping is a form of authority, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. The relevant questions are:
- Is this authority exercised transparently with documented criteria?
- Are decisions reviewable and contestable?
- What checks exist?
Currently, our criteria for PR acceptance are based on these guidelines for proposal formats. Any rejection or delay can be challenged publicly on the forum. We don’t have unilateral power to pass any proposal, only to verify procedural readiness before community vote.
We acknowledge these guidelines need updating to reflect the move to a Seasonal structure. We commit to publishing a clearer, consolidated set of rules that includes a readiness checklist template for each PR, so “objective criteria” is demonstrable rather than implicit. This documentation is already in progress.
That said, we take your point that procedural roles still create influence over timing and framing. What structural changes would make this authority more accountable in your view? Options might include multiple independent reviewers, public logs of all gatekeeping decisions with rationale, or rotation of this role.
You’re correct that you posted timestamp evidence in that thread and we responded to a subsequent comment without addressing your concern directly. That was an oversight on our part, and we apologize for not engaging with your argument. Let us address it now:
The proposal failed 11 of Aug and another discussion was opened on 2nd of Sep, they DID NOT submit for a vote until the 9th of Oct.
This was then discussed on 4th of September at governance call 76 leaving ample time for continued discussion and incorporation of feedback before final submission to vote on the 9th of October. That is 59 days later and it aligns with a 28 days cooldown period without submitting the proposal.
CGP 216-218 Issues
On the commitment to immediate re-submission: You’re correct that proposal text promising procedural outcomes (like guaranteed re-submission timelines) shouldn’t override governance rules. In hindsight, we should have flagged this language before the proposal went to vote. The actual outcome, the proposal passing with clear support, meant this commitment was never tested, but that doesn’t excuse the oversight. Procedural accuracy should be outcome-independent, and we’ll apply that standard going forward.
On the “No votes do not affect quorum” text: You are correct that this statement was inaccurate, No votes do count toward quorum. This was an error that should have been caught and corrected before publication. We take responsibility for this oversight.
On CGP 218 discussion sufficiency: The timeline was extensive:
- Oct 3: Initial discussion opened on the forum
- Oct 30: First draft posted after considerable discussion
- Dec 5: Second iteration drafted in response to community feedback
- Governance Call 81: Discussion extended 30 minutes beyond the usual hour to hear all perspectives. During the call, a PR was submitted to the Governance Repository which we declined to merge due to clear dissatisfaction expressed on the call.
- Dec 22: Three parallel proposals opened for community discussion
- Dec 30: GitHub PR merged
Three months of active discussion, multiple iterations, and extended deliberation. We acknowledge the quorum language error and should have had more scrutiny on that wording. However, the claim of insufficient discussion doesn’t align with the record. The feedback and discussion across forum posts was extensive, with substantive input from multiple perspectives. Given the genuine contention, we worked to ensure all viewpoints had opportunity to be heard before moving forward. We believe we did our best to satisfy all stakeholders during a difficult discussion.
Conflict of Interest
You make a fair structural point. We want to be clear about the current situation:
- Wade - Prezenti
- 0xj4an - Community Guild
- 0xGoldo - Community Guild
- Anna - Celo Foundation (Does not receive compensation from this proposal and acts in advisory role. This role does not merge PRs and was formerly held by Eric Nakagawa and other members of Celo Foundation in the past and is primarily to assist with coordination).
We understand the sunk cost critique. Our concern isn’t “we’ve invested too much to change” it’s operational continuity during transition. However, you make a valid point: if our documentation is truly robust, handoff should be feasible. We are willing to support a structured transition process if the community determines that’s the appropriate path.
We’d also welcome anyone interested in contributing to governance operations to get involved. Whether that’s joining the current structure or helping design a better one. This work has historically struggled to attract contributors, and more participation would strengthen whatever model the community chooses.
Agreed. All substantive governance decisions and justifications should be documented on the forum as the permanent public record. Governance calls should supplement, not substitute for, forum accountability. We commit to ensuring that any position the Guild takes is documented in writing here.
We recognize that trust, once eroded, must be rebuilt through demonstrated action rather than promises. Following the Season 2 proposal process, we commit to implementing the following for Season 3:
- Updated and consolidated governance guidelines reflecting the Seasonal structure
- A readiness checklist template for each PR to make acceptance criteria demonstrable
- Public logs of gatekeeping decisions with documented rationale
- A review of conflict-of-interest safeguards and recusal procedures
We welcome further suggestions on structural improvements from the community.