Skip to main content

Elder Council Voting Simulation

Overview​

This section documents the simulation of the Elder Council voting phase within the Mātou DAO governance framework. The goal was to test how Elders engage with proposals through introduction, discussion, and decision-making stages, ensuring decisions align with tikanga and community values.

The simulation involved Cherese and Jo as Elders, Engie as the proposer, and Ben as governance steward.

The simulation was divided into four main stages:

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

Each step was documented through live discussion, collaborative interaction, and role-based walkthroughs.

📊 Elder Council Voting Flow Diagram (opens in new tab)

Stage 1: Proposal Introduction​

Objectives​

  • Inform Elders about the proposal and required decisions
  • Ensure Elders are aware and have time to review
  • Schedule and prepare for facilitated discussion

Roles Involved​

RoleResponsibilities
ProposerPresent proposal and respond to change requests/questions
Governance StewardIntroduce proposal, coordinate communications, schedule hui
Elder Council MembersReview the proposal and prepare feedback

Process​

  1. Governance steward introduced the proposal via elder council comms
  2. Message included proposal, decision needs, hui schedule, and expectations
  3. Elders acknowledged receipt and interest in engagement
  4. Call was scheduled for discussion

Stage 2: Proposal Discussion​

Objectives​

  • Enable elders to ask questions and raise feedback
  • Allow proposer to respond and clarify
  • Uphold tikanga through kōrero

Process​

  1. Governance steward facilitated group call discussion
  2. Proposer attended to present and answer questions
  3. Elders discussed feedback and concerns
  4. No change requests were formally submitted

Reflections​

  • Proposer presence helped with real-time clarity
  • Hui ensured shared understanding
  • Some confusion over who led specific follow-ups

Stage 3: Proposal Decision​

Objectives​

  • Enable elders to cast a vote: veto, no veto, abstain
  • Gather feedback to inform proposer and governance log

Process​

  1. Governance steward created poll in council comms
  2. Elders voted using options: Veto, No Veto, Abstain, Feedback only
  3. No veto was issued; decision logged as approved to proceed

Reflections​

  • Clear voting options made process easy to follow
  • Elders appreciated flexibility to abstain or leave comments
  • Discussion before voting allowed concerns to surface

Stage 4: Proposal Actioned​

Objectives​

  • Record and communicate the elder decision
  • Trigger the next phase of governance (e.g., Community House)

Process​

  1. Governance steward logged outcome on proposal
  2. Decision included vote outcome, timestamp, and feedback summary
  3. Proposer was notified of result and next steps

Governance Parameters Observed​

Roles & Responsibilities​

RoleResponsibilities
ProposerPresent, respond to questions/change requests
Governance StewardsIntroduce proposal, facilitate hui, facilitate vote
Elder Council MembersReview, give feedback, request changes, decide whether to veto

Requirements​

  • Elders must be informed of the proposal
  • Hui is mandatory for discussion
  • Adequate time must be given for review, kōrero, and voting

Actions​

  1. Steward introduces proposal via council channel
  2. Steward schedules and facilitates group hui
  3. Elders ask questions, give feedback, or request changes
  4. Steward facilitates veto vote
  5. Elders vote on whether to veto or not
  • Governance stewards with active proposals have write access to elder council channel
  • All proposals must include a facilitated hui with elders
  • Elders must have an opportunity to provide feedback and veto all proposals

Summary​

The Elder Council simulation reinforced the role of elders in upholding tikanga, reviewing proposals, and safeguarding collective values. Through a structured and transparent process, the simulation demonstrated how elder input shapes the direction and integrity of DAO decisions.

Key Takeaways:

  • Clear facilitation and timely comms enabled meaningful engagement
  • Hui process supported clarity, trust, and cultural integrity
  • Veto power is a vital safeguard and should be well supported
  • Feedback options and abstention flexibility created a low-pressure voting environment