Community House Voting Simulation
Overview
This section documents the simulation of the Community House decision-making phase within the Mātou DAO governance framework. The purpose was to test how community representatives engage with proposals to determine strategic priorities for the collective, ensuring alignment with Mātou values and culture.
The simulation involved the review of a $120K proposal submitted by the proposer (Engie). Community representatives engaged in facilitated discussions, reviewed the proposal, and ultimately voted to support the kaupapa. This decision paved the way for Contributor House deliberation and implementation planning.
The simulation included four main stages:
- Proposal introduction
- Proposal discussion
- Proposal decision
- Proposal actioned
Each stage was designed to uphold tikanga, strategic alignment, and collective decision-making.
📊 Community House Voting Flow Diagram (opens in new tab)
Stage 1: Proposal Introduction
Objectives
- Inform community representatives about the proposal
- Clarify the decisions required
- Enable representatives to prepare for discussion and voting
Roles & Responsibilities
| Role | Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Proposer | Presents the proposal to the community representatives and responds to change requests and questions |
| Governance Stewards | Introduce the proposal to the community representatives, facilitate proposal discussions, respond to process questions, and facilitate the voting process |
| Community Representatives | Review the proposal, provide feedback/insights, submit change requests, and vote on the decisions identified in the proposal |
Requirements
- Community representatives are aware of the proposal
- Community representatives have had the opportunity to discuss the proposal in a group call
- Community representatives have been given time to review, ask questions, request changes, and provide feedback
- Community representatives have been given time to vote on the decisions identified in the proposal decision plan
Actions
- The governance steward introduces the proposal and the required decisions to the community representatives via the communication channels
- The governance steward coordinates and facilitates a group call to present the proposal, support discussion, and respond to questions
- Community representatives review the proposal, provide feedback, request changes, and raise questions
- The governance steward facilitates the vote on each decision identified for the community house
- Community representatives vote on the decisions
Related Rules
- Community representatives must have the opportunity to review, request changes, and provide feedback on all proposals
- All proposals must have a facilitated group call with community representatives
- All decisions identified in the proposal decision plan must be voted on by the community representatives
- A quorum of at least 20% of total community representatives or total $COM must be represented in each decision
Stage 2: Proposal Discussion
Objectives
- Enable dialogue among community representatives
- Clarify proposal elements
- Facilitate alignment around strategic fit and community needs
Process
- Governance steward facilitated a group call and supported asynchronous discussion via community channels
- Community representatives raised questions and explored strategic alignment
- The proposer responded to clarify purpose and community benefits
- No major change requests were submitted
Reflections
- Group call format enabled participation and alignment
- Discussion reinforced values fit and kaupapa understanding
Stage 3: Proposal Decision
Objectives
- Conduct a token-weighted vote
- Confirm community representative support for the proposal as a strategic priority
Voting Summary
| Representative | Tokens Allocated | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Cherese | 9 | Yes (3) |
| Jo | 25 | Yes (4) |
Outcome: Yes – 7 tokens total (Approved)
Reflections
- Token-weighted model enabled proportional input
- Process facilitated by governance steward improved clarity and pace
- Voting surfaced shared support and understanding
Stage 4: Proposal Actioned
Objectives
- Communicate the decision outcome
- Advance the proposal to the next phase of DAO governance
Process
- Governance steward updated the proposal status and logged the vote outcome
- The proposal was approved as a strategic priority
- Proposal was forwarded to the Contributor House for viability and implementation planning
Governance Parameters Observed
Roles & Responsibilities
| Role | Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Proposer | Present the proposal and respond to questions or change requests |
| Governance Stewards | Introduce proposal, facilitate discussion, and coordinate the voting process |
| Community Representatives | Review, provide feedback, request changes, and vote on proposal decisions |
Requirements
- Community representatives are informed and engaged
- Group call for proposal discussion is completed
- Community representatives have sufficient time for review and feedback
- Voting occurs according to the approved plan and quorum rules
Actions
- Governance steward introduced the proposal to representatives
- Facilitated group call enabled discussion
- Proposal feedback and any change requests gathered
- Governance steward issued voting poll
- Community representatives voted on decisions
Related Rules
- All proposals must involve a group call with community representatives
- Decisions must be voted on by the community representatives as per the proposal plan
- Quorum of 20% of representatives or $COM must be met
- Community representatives must have the opportunity to request changes and provide feedback
Summary
The Community House voting simulation demonstrated how kaupapa Māori governance can be upheld through transparency, structure, and collective decision-making. Community representatives played a central role in shaping outcomes aligned with shared priorities.
Key Takeaways:
- Clear facilitation and timely communication are essential
- Strategic alignment enables consensus
- Quorum and token mechanics support equitable participation
- The process supports tikanga and collective trust