Thanks for the clarification.
This issue looks quite different under the v1.1 framework. v1.1 removes the “30 likes within 7 days” threshold for passing the discussion stage. Instead, proposals enter a 21-day public Community Review period, after which the proposer decides whether to proceed to the voting stage.
7 days is often not enough time for a decentralized community to fully digest and discuss a proposal’s details, and 30 likes as a filtering signal might be unreliable (which is exactly the issue you’ve raised). v1.1 replaces this with a longer review period and requires the DAO Stewards to organize at least one public AMA during that period, giving the community a chance to directly question the proposer. This shifts the basis of community judgment from the quantity and source of likes toward substantive discussion and Q&A.
If you still feel that a tenure signal mechanism at the review stage would be valuable for community assessment, this is not covered by the current v1.1 rules, and initiating a meta-rule discussion would remain the appropriate path.
感谢您的澄清。
在 v1.1 框架下，这个问题不太一样。v1.1 取消了“7 天内获得 30 个赞”才能通过讨论阶段的门槛。取而代之的是，提案将进入为期 21 天的公开社区审查期，之后提案人决定是否进入投票阶段。
7 天的时间通常不足以让去中心化社区充分理解和讨论提案的细节，而 30 个赞作为筛选信号可能并不可靠（这正是您提出的问题）。v1.1 用更长的审查期取而代之，并要求 DAO 物业在此期间至少组织一次公开 AMA，让社区有机会直接向提案人提问。这使得社区判断的依据从点赞的数量和来源转向了实质性的讨论和问答。
如果您仍然认为在评审阶段引入任期信号机制对社区评估有价值，那么目前的 v1.1 规则并未涵盖这一点，发起元规则讨论仍然是合适的途径。