Incorporate community feedback (#1)

v0.1.1: Incorporate Community Feedback
 - Clarifies that this github is the home for this document's version management.
 - Adds a proposal feedback step.
 - Updates the proposal submission step for clarity around who can submit to snapshot.
 - Addresses some community feedback on wording.
 - Adds a "proposal lifecycle" diagram.

README.md

@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ The OPerating Manual describes the current set of rules for the Optimism Collect
 
 The OPerating Manual is a living document maintained by the Optimism Foundation. We [encourage frequent iteration and feedback](https://optimism.mirror.xyz/r888e4B5iiNQi-3_mO26ixgv-plQ099XWgqEOv9iWKA), and the manual is published here on github to encourage transparency and community feedback.
 
-## Version: 0.1.0
+## Version: 0.1.1

manual.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-This document describes the current governance proposal process of the Optimism Collective. It will evolve, with the Collective, over time.
+This document describes the current governance proposal process of the Optimism Collective. It will evolve, with the Collective, over time, and is maintained [here](https://github.com/ethereum-optimism/OPerating-manual) on the Optimism Foundation Github.
 
-### **OPerating Manual v0.1.0:  The Token House and OP Holders**
+### **OPerating Manual v0.1.1:  The Token House and OP Holders**
 
 Governance in the Optimism Collective begins with the launch of the Token House and its members, the OP holders.
 
@@ -19,11 +19,20 @@ The two primary tools for Optimism Collective governance are:
 
 ### **Proposal Process – Components of a Valid Proposal**
 
-The lifecycle of a Token House governance proposal involves three phases:  (1) submission; (2) voting; and (3) implementation. Each phase, and its associated requirements, are described below.
+The lifecycle of a Token House governance proposal involves three phases:  (1) feedback; (2) submission; (3) voting; and (4) implementation. Each phase, and its associated requirements, are described below.
 
-1 . **Submission**
+1 . **Feedback**
 
-To be eligible for voting, a Token House governance proposal must be validly submitted by an OP holder or their delegate. This means that the proposal must be:
+Anyone submitting a proposal should make an effort to gather feedback from the community and from Delegates prior to submitting a proposal for vote. There are two primary avenues for feedback:
+    a. For lightweight or early feedback, authors may post a proposal (or an abbreviated version of your proposal) in the #proposal-discussion channel on Discord. This channel is open to the entire Optimism community and can be used as an easy way to get a quick temperature check.
+    b. For formal feedback from governance participants, authors may post a proposal in the Forum with a `[DRAFT]` label in the title. This signals your proposal is ready for feedback from Token House delegates.
+All feedback from these two forums is non-binding, but proposers are expected to engage in good faith. This step is designed to help craft thoughtful, effective proposals.
+
+After incorporating feedback, the proposal author may remove `[DRAFT]` from the proposal title and advance to proposal submission.
+
+2 . **Submission**
+
+To be eligible for voting, a Token House governance proposal must be formally submitted by an OP holder or their delegate. This means that the proposal must be:
 
 - **A valid Proposal Type.** All v0.1 governance proposals must fall within one of the following categories:
     - Governance Fund (Phase 0 or Phase 1)
@@ -35,14 +44,16 @@ To be eligible for voting, a Token House governance proposal must be validly sub
 
 For a more detailed description of each Proposal Type, see “Proposal Process – By Proposal Type” below.
 
-- **Properly formatted to the applicable Template.** Each Proposal Type will have a specific Template associated with it. Prior to submission, a proposal author must conform their proposal to the format of the applicable Template in all material respects. This will include, for the time being, a requirement that all submissions be made in English.
+- **Properly formatted to the applicable Template.** Each Proposal Type will have a specific Template associated with it in the Forum. Prior to submission, a proposal author must conform their proposal to the format of the applicable Template in all material respects. This will include, for the time being, a requirement that all submissions be made in English.
 - **Submitted to the correct Forum(s).** All Token House governance proposals must be submitted to Snapshot for voting. While use of the Optimism Forum is mostly optional, all Governance Fund (Phase 1) proposals must be submitted to *both* the Forum and Snapshot. Finally, to the extent a governance proposal is posted on both the Forum and Snapshot, the content of that proposal should be identical on both platforms.
+- **Approved by at least one Delegate.** Over the course of discussion and feedback, at least one Delegate with more than 0.0005% of voting power must signal that they believe the proposal is ready for vote. In the spirit of governance minimization, this document will not codify an explicit approval mechanism but will expect community members to interpret this appropriately.
+- **Submitted to the Voting Cycle Submission thread on the Forum.** One week before the start of each voting cycle, the Foundation will start a Voting Period Submission thread on the Forum. To formally submit a proposal for voting, the proposal author must add a link to this thread that points to their proposal on the Forum. At the start of the next Voting Period, the Optimism Foundation will submit all valid proposals on the Submission thread to Snapshot for voting.
 
 Submitted proposals must satisfy all the above criteria to be considered valid. Invalid proposals will be thrown out.
 
 Anyone submitting a proposal is welcome to submit a draft version of the proposal for feedback on the Optimism Forum. To do so, please include `[Draft]` in your Forum title, then update the proposal title once the proposal body is finalized.
 
-2 . **Voting**
+3 . **Voting**
 
 To minimize overhead, all votes are conducted on Snapshot at regular intervals called **voting periods**. Voting periods begin each Thursday at 7pm GMT and end 1 week and 6 days later, on the following Wednesday at 7pm GMT. Proposal types may require one or more voting periods before a resolution to the vote can be reached.
 
@@ -56,10 +67,16 @@ A Token House governance proposal will only be approved if it satisfies the foll
 
 Depending on the Proposal Type, exact quorum and approval threshold requirements may vary.
 
-3 . **Implementation**
+4 . **Implementation**
 
 Proposals that are rejected due to invalidity or insufficient support can be resubmitted. Approved proposals are routed to the Optimism Foundation for implementation, as more fully described in the “Implementation and Administration” section below.
 
+### **Proposal Process – Lifecycle**
+
+While the details of a particular Token House governance proposal may vary by Proposal Type, a proposal’s lifecycle will generally look something like this:
+
+![Proposal Process Lifecycle](/images/lifecycle.png)
+
 ### **Proposal Process  – By Proposal Type**
 
 The different requirements for submission and approval of each Proposal Type are summarized below.
@@ -80,7 +97,7 @@ In all cases, Optimism Collective governance is intended to be carried out consi
 
 **Administration**
 
-The Optimism Foundation will facilitate the administration of the governance procedures described in this OPerating Manual with the aim of ensuring that OP holders may participate efficiently and effectively in Token House governance. Such administrative services may include:
+The Optimism Foundation will facilitate the administration of the governance procedures described in this OPerating Manual with the aim of ensuring that OP holders may participate thoughtfully in Token House governance. Such administrative services may include:
 
 - Moderation of governance proposals to ensure they are validly submitted and voted upon;
 - Removal of proposals that reasonably appear to be fraudulent, spam-oriented, defamatory, hateful, or otherwise inappropriate or inconsistent with the values of the Collective;