Shouldn’t an RFC be a requirement as well? I think its really important that those with ideas for a proposal take in feedback before officially submitting their final proposal. Having the RFC as a requirement gives a better chance for revision before the stakes are heated. When the pressure is on in the RGP feedback comes off as much more personal as some good/bad feedback can make or break the vote. It’s important that those submitting a proposal get a read on the community so they aren’t turned off if the feedback isn’t going their way.
This can be seen with RGP-2 RGP-000-002: EVI DAO - Bitcoin Backed, Inflation-Resistant Stable Asset - #27 by 0xCryptoseldon
While it was the author’s choice to submit this proposal straight without an RFC, and then immediately send it to vote, in the end he clearly felt all his hard work wasn’t taken seriously by our community. While i don’t think it’s our responsibility to hold anyone’s hand, I do think the process should be setup in a way that there is time for all ideas to be digested and responded to in a way that doesn’t leave anyone wanting to rage quit REN protocol (which is what this author did in the end).
Two weeks is way too short, I’m much more of a fan of what @Thomm is saying here. But if we aren’t doing that it would make sense to me that you have minimum:
RFC - 1 week
RGP - 1 week
Vote - 2 weeks.
The quorum issue would be much less of a problem if we are doing quarterly rounds with vote periods being very predictable.