Work in Progress
Nothing in this post is final. Governance design and framework components are all subject to change. Parameters will be tuned, mechanisms will be revised, and entire sections may be rewritten. Expect iteration. Expect breaking changes during the early testing. Expect this page to look different from day to day.
Governance Categories
Discussion
The Discussion category is intended for:
-
Early ideas
-
Exploratory governance conversations
-
Community feedback
-
Brainstorming
-
Initial protocol discussions
Discussion topics are informal and are not considered official governance proposals.
Not every discussion is expected to advance further in the governance process.
Request for Comment (RFC)
The RFC category is intended for structured governance proposals seeking formal review and feedback.
RFCs are expected to:
-
Present a clear proposal
-
Explain motivation and rationale
-
Outline implementation details
-
Identify risks and tradeoffs
-
Encourage constructive review and iteration
RFCs may evolve significantly during discussion prior to advancing toward Governance Vote.
All RFCs are expected to follow the official RFC template.
Governance Vote
The Governance Vote category represents the final governance approval stage.
Governance Votes should only be created after:
-
Sufficient discussion
-
RFC review
-
Proposal refinement
-
Risk evaluation
Governance Votes are considered final governance proposals submitted for approval by governance participants.
All Governance Votes are expected to follow the official Governance Vote template.
Proposal Standards
Governance proposals should:
-
Be written clearly and professionally
-
Focus on long-term protocol sustainability
-
Explain rationale and objectives
-
Identify risks and tradeoffs
-
Avoid misleading or incomplete information
-
Remain constructive and respectful
Low-effort, malicious, intentionally disruptive, or misleading proposals may be rejected or removed.
RFC Expectations
RFCs are generally expected to include:
-
Proposal Summary
-
Motivation
-
Technical Specification
-
Economic Impact
-
Security & Risk Considerations
-
Implementation Approach
-
Timeline Considerations
Depending on proposal complexity, additional information may be requested during review.
RFC discussions are expected to remain collaborative and iterative.
Governance Vote Expectations
Governance Vote proposals should represent finalized proposal specifications ready for governance approval.
Governance Votes are expected to:
-
Clearly define the proposal objective
-
Include final implementation details
-
Reference relevant RFC discussions
-
Outline expected execution steps
-
Identify any remaining risks or dependencies
Governance Votes should avoid introducing major unreviewed changes that were not previously discussed during the RFC stage.
Participation Guidelines
Governance participants are encouraged to:
-
Read proposals carefully before voting
-
Participate constructively in discussions
-
Consider long-term protocol health
-
Evaluate security and risk implications
-
Contribute respectfully and professionally
Constructive criticism and open discussion are considered healthy parts of governance.
Transparency
Governance discussions, RFCs, Governance Votes, and governance-related decisions are intended to occur publicly through the governance forum whenever possible.
Transparency remains a core governance principle of Neverland Governance.
Additional Notes
Proposal templates, governance standards, and participation guidelines may evolve over time through future governance amendments and framework updates as Neverland Governance matures.