Skip to main content

Contributor House Voting Simulation

Overview​

This section documents the simulation of the Contributor House voting phase within the Mātou DAO governance framework. The aim was to test how contributors make decisions about feasibility, resourcing, and implementation viability after a proposal is approved by Community Representatives.

In this simulation, a $120k proposal was initially presented but voted down. Contributors discussed feasibility, raised concerns, and ultimately approved a revised version for $80k. The outcome guided the transition into implementation planning.

The simulation was broken into four main stages:

  • Proposal introduction
  • Proposal discussion
  • Proposal decision
  • Proposal actioned

Each stage emphasized transparency, feedback, and alignment with contributor capacity and kaupapa feasibility.

📊 Contributor House Voting Flow Diagram (opens in new tab)

Stage 1: Proposal Introduction​

Objectives​

  • Inform contributors about the proposal
  • Clarify the decisions required
  • Enable contributors to prepare for discussion and voting

Roles Involved​

RoleResponsibilities
ProposerPresent the proposal to contributors and respond to questions or change requests
Governance StewardIntroduce the proposal, facilitate discussions, clarify process questions, and coordinate voting
Collective ContributorsReview the proposal, provide feedback or change requests, and vote on decisions

Process​

  • Governance Steward introduced the $120k proposal via contributor channels
  • Contributors were given context, timelines, and access to proposal materials
  • A group call was scheduled to allow contributors to engage in real-time

Stage 2: Proposal Discussion​

Objectives​

  • Facilitate review of scope and feasibility
  • Enable dialogue on budget and outcomes
  • Identify alternative options if necessary

Process​

  • Contributors participated in a facilitated call
  • Major concerns were raised about the $120k budget being too high
  • Contributors discussed viable alternatives and requested a reduced scope
  • The proposer responded and agreed to revise the budget

Stage 3: Proposal Decision​

Objectives​

  • Vote on revised contributor scope and resourcing

Voting Summary​

  • The initial $120k proposal was voted down
  • The Contributor House recommended and voted on a revised $80k scope
  • The revised proposal was approved unanimously

Reflections​

  • Budget feasibility was a key deciding factor
  • Contributors valued having a voice in refining scope
  • The process reinforced the importance of two-way dialogue with proposers

Stage 4: Proposal Actioned​

Objectives​

  • Confirm contributor approval and transition to implementation planning

Process​

  • Status of the revised $80k proposal was updated to "Approved"
  • Governance steward coordinated next steps with proposer and contributors
  • Implementation simulation followed this vote

Governance Parameters Observed​

Roles & Responsibilities​

RoleResponsibilities
ProposerPresent proposal to the contributors and respond to change requests and proposal questions
Governance StewardIntroduce the proposal to the contributors, facilitate proposal discussions, respond to process questions, and coordinate voting
Collective ContributorsReview the proposal, provide feedback and insights, submit change requests, and vote on contributor proposal decisions

Requirements​

  • Contributors must be aware of the proposal
  • Contributors must attend a facilitated group call
  • Contributors must have time to review and ask questions
  • Contributors must have time to vote on the proposal decisions
  • Contributors must have voted on the proposal

Actions​

  1. Governance steward introduces the proposal and required decisions via contributor channels
  2. Governance steward facilitates group call for discussion
  3. Contributors review proposal, ask questions, and suggest changes
  4. Proposer responds to feedback and revises the proposal
  5. Governance steward coordinates a vote on contributor decisions
  6. Contributors vote on the proposal
  • Contributors must have the opportunity to review, request changes, and provide feedback on all proposals that require contributor decision-making
  • All proposals must have a facilitated group call with contributors
  • All contributor decisions identified in the proposal plan must be voted on by contributors
  • A quorum of at least 10% of total contributors or total CTR must be represented in each decision
  • All contributors holding at least 1 CTR can vote (including proposer and governance steward)

Required Tools​

  • Change request form