In the event that a proposal does not pass, the requestor may want modify it and resubmit.
To prevent this from clogging up the governance process, there should be a delay introduced that must pass between when voting ends and when the proposal can be resubmitted
Something like 30 60 or 90 days would probably be reasonable, everyone please share your thoughts.
I agree but the time period can’t actually be determined because of the changes needed to be made, some might be big and some small that can be done in a week. I think a 60 day period is fine with a request from the project to extend the days to 90 stating their reasons on why they need the extra days.
I think a minimum period is all that’s required, they should take as long as they need to make changes before resubmitting, so I don’t think there’s a need to ask for an extension IMO.
But I agree that 60 days would be a good number and would encourage some real consideration of the changes being made because it’s a pretty substantial time to have to wait out.
Also, having a long delay period like 60 days would encourage them to listen to the feedback in the proposal stage and possibly make changes before it even goes up for a vote the first time.
我个人也同意如果提案在 Metaforo 上投票未通过，提案人应该间隔一段时间才能重新提交提案。这个间隔时间 60 天是比较合理的。
这条附加规则属于 CKB Community Fund DAO 元规则的修改（补充），所以需要写成一份提案进行投票， 而不是直接由管理委员会或者管理员直接修改。
所以，CKB 的守护者们，让我们一起迭代 CKB Community Fund DAO 的元规则吧！
It‘s great to see more and more suggestions from the community on the optimization of rules.
I personally agree that if the proposal fails to pass the vote on Metaforo, it needs to wait for a certain period of time before resubmitting. The interval of 60 days is reasonable.
This additional rule is a modification (supplement) of the meta-rules of CKB Community Fund DAO, so it needs to be submitted as a proposal for voting, instead of being directly updated by the Committee or administrators.
So, CKB hodlers, let’s improve the meta-rules of CKB Community Fund DAO together!
I agree with the proposal. I also think 60 days is fine but 30 is worth consideration too. 4 weeks to improve a proposal seems like sufficient time. I worry that too long of a delay might be a disincentive for someone or a project to try again.
If I had a preference, I would say 30
As yeti mentioned, i think a minimum time period is all that is required. 60 days seems too long and may dis-incentivize the proposal. 30 days may even be a tad too long. But i do agree we want to reduce potential submission spam and promote well thought-out proposals.