Call for an emergency vote to push back every stage of ANV4 by 1 week

I’ll provide my position shortly after checking with @light, but I will say that I would like processes that work for the community and not the community working for the processes.

At the same time, we should always strive to not create negative precedents that break the rule, and so this is a hard balance. Will circle back shortly.


Agreed! The only way this can happen is if the community engages in the process. Considering that the process did not work for the majority of community members who engaged, it would make sense to adjust accordingly.

Agreed! In this case, however, there are no rules being broken. The AGP process is not being modified in any way. Rescheduling an AGP is within the framework of AGP-1, and that framework exists to serve the Aragon community. The AA has the ability to re-schedule a vote, and has done so in the past due to technical difficulties. ANV4 has also experienced technical difficulties. Rescheduling ANV4 (by 1 week) would allow all parties involved to participate equally, resulting in better AGPs for ANT voters.

Thinking this through and it doesn’t quite make sense. @light alright provided an opinion on this topic in this thread. What more is there to check?

I hear and understand the feedback from AGP Process participants on this thread that the workflow around Stage IV finalization is counter-intuitive to those used to the established workflow of the platform used for Aragon Network governance (GitHub). I have proposed an errata fix (not requiring a vote to implement) with the goal of bringing the workflow more in line with how people are used to using GitHub. I welcome your feedback on this proposed change:

@burrrata @jordan @lkngtn @stefanobernardi

In terms of how to proceed, irregardless of the outcome with the above PR, after thinking about this some more I agree with other comments in this thread that the fact PRs were “broken” for some people and unable to be fixed before Stage V was scheduled to begin is reason enough to justify rescheduling the vote (which would automatically push back the other stages of the vote cycle) so that authors can properly prepare their AGPs for finalization. As has been pointed out, this can be authorized by the AA without any further action by ANT holders necessary.

@luis @jorge

I still have not heard back from GitHub about the cause of the “unknown repository” issue. A quick search of the internet suggests this happens when the “fork” repo that the PR is being merged from gets deleted. I’m not sure if this is what happened with the PRs in question. Could the affected authors confirm if they remember deleting the source repo that their AGP PRs were being merged from while the PRs were still open? @burrrata @anteater


The AA has voted to approve a delay. Announcement here:


Since every stage of ANV-4 has been pushed back by one week, I have re-opened the PRs that were closed last week, with the exception of the PRs that were affected by the “unknown repository” issue. @burrrata some of yours are the only PRs that remain closed. Please try to create these AGPs as new PRs and if they are affected by the unknown repositories issue again then we’ll try and figure out how best to proceed from here.

1 Like

I did not delete the source repo that AGPs were merged from while the PRs were still open. I also followed the same process for all PRs besides the 1Hive sponsorship proposal, so it’s unclear why some worked as expected and some did not.

Will do. Thank you for the update.

Thinking it through and this is still not intuitive… A pull request is a request to merge something into the repo. An Issue is where discussion around ideas happens. Why not just make Issues in the AGPs repo where proposals in stage III and IV go, and then have PRs be where people submit finalized proposals ready to be reviewed by AA and merged into the AGP repo if approved by ANT holders? That would make way more sense.

I second this.

I think a PR is by its definition a finalized state.

I’m not sure I’d want GH issues clouding the process even more as we have the forum for those phases, but that could work too.

1 Like

A pull request is a nice place to collaborate because people can make suggestions directly into the content itself, and these suggestions can be discussed and either be merged or rejected by the author directly in the pull request.

I think having the workflow I am proposing where PRs are either submitted as drafts or clearly marked as drafts, and any PR that isn’t marked as such is considered final, is a fair compromise between my motivation for using PRs due to ease of collaboration and others’ concerns about PRs being misunderstood as being final submissions.

This is a really good point that I did not take into consideration. Having just gone through this process, it was really nice to just be able to click a button to incorporate edits.

So then people would mark AGPs as drafts, but then once that draft marking is removed they would not have to perform the additional step of commenting that a proposal is “finalized / ready to review / please move to stage V” comments?

Correct, the specific wording in my PR says:

After a proposal in Stage IV has been thoroughly reviewed, you may finalize your proposal by making any final changes and mark the pull request as “Ready to review”, changing the draft pull request to a ready pull request. If you do not finalize the proposal and change the pull request from “draft” to “ready to review” before Stage V is scheduled to begin, AGP Editors will consider the proposal withdrawn and close the pull request when Stage V begins.*

* If the draft proposal was submitted as a ready pull request with [DRAFT] in the title as required in the Stage IV section above, then [DRAFT] should be removed from the title when the pull request is finalized and ready for review. If [DRAFT] is not removed from the pull request title before Stage V is scheduled to begin, then AGP Editors will consider the proposal withdrawn and close the pull request when Stage V begins.

What if someone submits a PR before the community review stage without the DRAFT marking? Would it be rejected from community review or would it go through?

Again quoting from the PR:

After an AGP has been submitted as a draft to the AGPs repo, it must undergo a Community Review period that starts three weeks before the next Aragon Network vote begins and lasts for one week. Draft AGPs must be submitted as a draft pull request to the AGPs repo before the Community Review period begins to be considered for the next Aragon Network vote.* All draft AGPs that have an open pull request at the time the Community Review begins will automatically be moved to Stage IV for consideration.

* If a draft AGP pull request is accidentally submitted as a ready pull request instead of a draft pull request, the author should put [DRAFT] in the title of the pull request.

Cool. Just want to be 100% sure since there’s been confusion in the past.