Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explore possible collaboration with Metagov #103

Closed
lrettig opened this issue Oct 22, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Explore possible collaboration with Metagov #103

lrettig opened this issue Oct 22, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
mtg-discuss Meeting Discussion Point

Comments

@lrettig
Copy link
Contributor

lrettig commented Oct 22, 2020

Contingent upon the grant application being approved, I think there's the potential for some interesting, mutually beneficial collaboration with the Metagov group regarding designing and testing a community voting mechanism. As discussed in the working group channel on Discord today, contributors to Metagov have developed tools such as CommunityRule and PolicyKit that could have value here. Let's discuss how we might use these tools, and what collaboration between our two groups might look like.

@whoabuddy whoabuddy added the mtg-action Meeting Action Item label Oct 23, 2020
@HaroldDavis3
Copy link

@lrettig This would be great, very flexible tools & ripe for collaboration with mainnet launch around the corner. Friedger has mentioned some fair launch ideas; flexibility of these tools could be relevant for any further discussion.

@whoabuddy
Copy link
Member

After #120 we decided to move this to mtg-discuss regarding the Metagov concept, and link it to #119 as part is in progress with the voting mechanism grant and milestone.

@whoabuddy whoabuddy added mtg-discuss Meeting Discussion Point and removed mtg-action Meeting Action Item labels Dec 17, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
mtg-discuss Meeting Discussion Point
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants