Proposal for Assigning the Cancel Role to the Obol Association

[stefa2k]

@cp0x

I suggest forming a council composed of elected delegates and representatives from the Obol Association and Obol Labs - with the delegates forming the majority.

This is necessary to prevent a single entity blocking proposals. I’d extend on this and suggest that proposals to make changes to the council (add/remove members) are not being able to be blocked by the council itself.

@Stakesaurus

To prevent censorship, we can additionally allow delegates to veto over a 1.5-week time period.

In this case a proposal without meeting the formal requirements but enough votes would still pass. It also runs down the purpose of such a council. It would then only become a more visible opinion.

I also agree with the others to lower the cooling period. I’m leaning towards 2 to 5 governance cycles, as @zwanzger.eth already lined out, that’s a great call.

@zwanzger.eth

Not sure about the details, as to be effective, cancellations should happen relatively quickly, so maybe something like a 3-of-5.

Speaking of implementation: I’d love to see a SAFE for this. I didn’t see any implementation efforts (Tally?) to cover other expenses of this OIP, I would suggest (even if there are no efforts) to make this clear in the proposal and how members of the council are expected to vote and execute (e.g. SAFE).