Process for Adding New System Collectives (#12)

This RFC proposes a means for Polkadot stakeholders to ratify a new
collective. The Fellowship should agree to add new collectives to the
Collectives parachain runtime that pass the given process.

Author: joepetrowski

text/0012-process-for-adding-new-collectives.md

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+# RFC-0012: Process for Adding New System Collectives
+
+|                 |                                                                               |
+| --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Start Date**  | 24 July 2023                                                                  |
+| **Description** | A process for adding new (and removing existing) system collectives.          |
+| **Authors**     | Joe Petrowski                                                                 |
+
+## Summary
+
+Since the introduction of the Collectives parachain, many groups have expressed interest in forming
+new -- or migrating existing groups into -- on-chain collectives. While adding a new collective is
+relatively simple from a technical standpoint, the Fellowship will need to merge new pallets into
+the Collectives parachain for each new collective. This RFC proposes a means for the network to
+ratify a new collective, thus instructing the Fellowship to instate it in the runtime.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Many groups have expressed interest in representing collectives on-chain. Some of these include:
+
+- Parachain technical fellowship (new)
+- Fellowship(s) for media, education, and evangelism (new)
+- Polkadot Ambassador Program (existing)
+- Anti-Scam Team (existing)
+
+Collectives that form part of the core Polkadot protocol should have a mandate to serve the
+Polkadot network. However, as part of the Polkadot protocol, the Fellowship, in its capacity of
+maintaining system runtimes, will need to include modules and configurations for each collective.
+
+Once a group has developed a value proposition for the Polkadot network, it should have a clear
+path to having its collective accepted on-chain as part of the protocol. Acceptance should direct
+the Fellowship to include the new collective with a given initial configuration into the runtime.
+However, the network, not the Fellowship, should ultimately decide which collectives are in the
+interest of the network.
+
+## Stakeholders
+
+- Polkadot stakeholders who would like to organize on-chain.
+- Technical Fellowship, in its role of maintaining system runtimes.
+
+## Explanation
+
+The group that wishes to operate an on-chain collective should publish the following information:
+
+- Charter, including the collective's mandate and how it benefits Polkadot. This would be similar
+  to the
+  [Fellowship Manifesto](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/manifesto/blob/0c3df46/manifesto.pdf).
+- Seeding recommendation.
+- Member types, i.e. should members be individuals or organizations.
+- Member management strategy, i.e. how do members join and get promoted, if applicable.
+- How much, if at all, members should get paid in salary.
+- Any special origins this Collective should have outside its self. For example, the Fellowship
+  can whitelist calls for referenda via the `WhitelistOrigin`.
+
+This information could all be in a single document or, for example, a GitHub repository.
+
+After publication, members should seek feedback from the community and Technical Fellowship, and
+make any revisions needed. When the collective believes the proposal is ready, they should bring a
+remark with the text `APPROVE_COLLECTIVE("{collective name}, {commitment}")` to a Root origin
+referendum. The proposer should provide instructions for generating `commitment`. The passing of
+this referendum would be unequivocal direction to the Fellowship that this collective should be
+part of the Polkadot runtime.
+
+Note: There is no need for a `REJECT` referendum. Proposals that have not been approved are simply
+not included in the runtime.
+
+### Removing Collectives
+
+If someone believes that an existing collective is not acting in the interest of the network or in
+accordance with its charter, they should likewise have a means to instruct the Fellowship to
+_remove_ that collective from Polkadot.
+
+An on-chain remark from the Root origin with the text
+`REMOVE_COLLECTIVE("{collective name}, {para ID}, [{pallet indices}]")` would instruct the
+Fellowship to remove the collective via the listed pallet indices on `paraId`. Should someone want
+to construct such a remark, they should have a reasonable expectation that a member of the
+Fellowship would help them identify the pallet indices associated with a given collective, whether
+or not the Fellowship member agrees with removal.
+
+Collective removal may also come with other governance calls, for example voiding any scheduled
+Treasury spends that would fund the given collective.
+
+## Drawbacks
+
+Passing a Root origin referendum is slow. However, given the network's investment (in terms of code
+maintenance and salaries) in a new collective, this is an appropriate step.
+
+## Testing, Security, and Privacy
+
+No impacts.
+
+## Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility
+
+Generally all new collectives will be in the Collectives parachain. Thus, performance impacts
+should strictly be limited to this parachain and not affect others. As the majority of logic for
+collectives is generalized and reusable, we expect most collectives to be instances of similar
+subsets of modules. That is, new collectives should generally be compatible with UIs and other
+services that provide collective-related functionality, with little modifications to support new
+ones.
+
+## Prior Art and References
+
+The launch of the Technical Fellowship, see the
+[initial forum post](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/calling-polkadot-core-developers/506).
+
+## Unresolved Questions
+
+None at this time.