—————————The following content is machine translation———————————————
Hello everyone, the community fund system has been in operation for a while. We are concerned that in actual operation, it may be because of the long discussion and voting cycle, which leads to a decline in work efficiency. Therefore, I hope to hear from everyone and whether it is necessary to adjust. Existing rules.
The existing rules are mainly:
1. The proposal meets the minimum public discussion period of not less than 7 days
2. The proposal initiated by the contributor role (such as ambassador, CCC, board member, part of the implementation of the proposal, etc.), the voting period is 7 days;
3. Proposal initiated by non-contributors, the voting period is 15 days;
According to the above requirements, our proposal will be from "initial to effective", the fastest time is "14 days" and the slowest time is "23 days".
If I want to apply for a fund for the promotion of NULS, then I need to wait at least 14 days before I can determine if I can do this. This is very unreasonable. It may make us miss something important. Opportunity.
My proposal is:
1. The contributor's proposal cycle is: 5 days for discussion, 5 days for voting
2. The non-contributor proposal cycle is: 7 days for discussion, 7 days for voting
The reason is that the publicity period has been discussed enough, so the voting cycle should be appropriately shortened.
I hope that everyone will express their opinions on this matter. After I collect it, I will submit it to the Board for discussion.
Attached to the community "NIP-3 NULS Community Fund Management and Use Process"