---
id: c9-governance-package
title: Governance Package
module: GROW-S9
module_slug: grow-s9-dao-governance
cluster: Coordination
type: template
version: v0.1.0
status: Gate-reviewed
tier: membership
contract_role: ""
canonical_url: "https://grow.goodcombinator.ai/library/registry/c9-governance-package"
download_url: "https://grow.goodcombinator.ai/library/registry/c9-governance-package.md"
license: CC-BY-4.0 (proposed — owner confirmation required)
source: GROW by Good Combinator
retrieved_at: 2026-05-29
---

# Governance Package

The Governance Package is the fillable six-scaffold bundle for a complete operational DAO governance system. It consolidates the six functional artifacts from Course 9 into a single deployment package: a governance charter, a decision-rights matrix, a proposal template, a treasury allocation policy, an accountability dashboard, and a governance review cadence. A practitioner building a new DAO governance layer fills one scaffold at a time in the order given; the output of each scaffold feeds the next. Each scaffold is a condensed fillable form of the full artifact it represents — the full artifact (e.g., `c9-governance-purpose-charter`) should be read before completing the corresponding scaffold. All six scaffolds together constitute a minimally viable governance system that is immediately operational.

---

## Scaffold 1 — Governance Charter

Derived from `c9-governance-purpose-charter`. Fill this first; it scopes all downstream scaffolds.

```yaml
# ─── GOVERNANCE CHARTER ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
governance_id: <kebab-case, e.g. pp-dao>
mission: >
  <One sentence: govern [resource] so that [participants] can [action] without
  [coordination failure].>
founding_date: <ISO 8601>
charter_version: 0.1.0
charter_owner: <role>

# Decision classes subject to governance (add rows as needed)
decision_classes:
  - id: treasury-allocation
    governed_resource: "Funds held in the DAO treasury"
    binding_mechanism: "Token vote → executor disbursement"
  - id: contract-change
    governed_resource: "Substrate files and interface contracts C1–C12"
    binding_mechanism: "Supermajority token vote → designated steward execution"
    meta_governance: true   # flags that this class is the only MAJOR-amendment path
  - id: working-group-charter
    governed_resource: "Working group authority and budget"
    binding_mechanism: "Simple majority vote"
  - id: retroactive-reward
    governed_resource: "Contributor compensation for past delivery"
    binding_mechanism: "Token vote, no-self-vote rule"
  # Add additional classes here — any class not listed is out of governance scope

# Items explicitly NOT subject to vote
governance_exclusions:
  - <Delegated operational decisions — state the role and scope>
  - <HR / individual compensation — state the accountable role>
  - <Emergency safety actions — handled by emergency-ratification>
  - <Legally bound obligations — state the governing instrument>
  - <Decisions past an irreversible-impact boundary — state the boundary>

# Meta-governance rule (do not modify without a contract-change proposal)
meta_governance_rule: >
  A contract-change proposal with outcome passed is the only authorized
  mechanism for amending any C1–C12 contract or substrate file at a MAJOR
  version. Tooling will not emit a compliant C11 record for a MAJOR amendment
  that lacks a corresponding passed contract-change proposal.
```

---

## Scaffold 2 — Decision-Rights Matrix

Derived from `c9-decision-rights-matrix`. Fill one row per decision class declared in Scaffold 1.

```yaml
# ─── DECISION-RIGHTS MATRIX ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
decision_rights:
  - class: treasury-allocation
    proposer: <eligibility rule, e.g. "any token holder ≥ N tokens">
    voter: <voter set, e.g. "all token holders, linear-weighted">
    executor: <role>
    vetoer: <role or "none">
    veto_window_days: <integer or 0>
    accountable: <role>
    approval_rule: <e.g. "simple majority, quorum required">

  - class: contract-change
    proposer: <e.g. "Steward Council member with council endorsement">
    voter: <e.g. "all token holders, linear-weighted">
    executor: <e.g. "designated steward named in proposal">
    vetoer: <e.g. "Founding Steward, single veto">
    veto_window_days: 7
    accountable: <e.g. "Designated Steward">
    approval_rule: "supermajority (≥ 67%); quorum required; 7-day review period"
    required_extras:
      - "Old/new diff of affected artifact"
      - "Impact statement for all consumers"
      - "Technical Lead sign-off"
      - "Legal/Compliance sign-off"
      - "14-day advance notice before voting opens"

  - class: retroactive-reward
    proposer: <e.g. "Working group lead; no self-nomination">
    voter: <e.g. "all token holders excluding nominee">
    executor: <e.g. "Treasurer">
    vetoer: "none"
    veto_window_days: 0
    accountable: <e.g. "Treasurer">
    approval_rule: "simple majority (excluding nominee); quorum required"

  # Add one block per decision class declared in Scaffold 1
```

---

## Scaffold 3 — Proposal Template

Derived from `c9-proposal-design-template`. This is the standard form submitters complete.

```yaml
# ─── PROPOSAL ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
proposal_id: <governance_id>-prop-<YYYY-NNN>
decision_class: <from Scaffold 2>
title: <≤ 12 words, answer-first>
submitted_by: <proposer identity>
submission_date: <ISO 8601>
voting_period_opens: <ISO 8601>
voting_period_closes: <ISO 8601>

summary: >
  <Lead with the decision requested and bottom-line outcome. 2–4 sentences.>

decision_requested:
  action: >
    <Specific, implementable action. Financial: include amount, currency, tranche.>
  timeline:
    execution_start: <ISO 8601 or "within N days of pass">
    execution_deadline: <ISO 8601>

executor_role: <from Scaffold 2>
accountable_role: <from Scaffold 2>
veto_holder: <from Scaffold 2; or "none">
veto_window_days: <from Scaffold 2>

evidence:
  - id: E1
    type: <document | data | audit-record | on-chain-tx | signed-attestation>
    description: <what it shows>
    uri: <resolving pointer>
    confidence_band: <high | medium | low | unknown>

milestones:           # include if milestone-gated; omit for single disbursements ≤ max_single_disbursement
  - id: M1
    deliverable: <specific observable output>
    evidence_required: <what must be submitted>
    tranche_amount: <amount>
    reviewer: <role; not the Executor>
    deadline: <ISO 8601>

conflict_of_interest:
  proposer_financial_interest: <yes | no>
  proposer_financial_interest_detail: <required if yes; "None." if no>
  recusal_required: <yes | no>
  no_self_vote_applicable: <yes | no>

# contract-change proposals add the supplement from c9-proposal-design-template §5
```

**Review checklist (Steward applies before admitting to queue):**

| # | Check | Blocking? |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Proposer eligibility verified | Yes |
| 2 | `action` is specific and executable | Yes |
| 3 | Executor and Accountable match Scaffold 2 | Yes |
| 4 | Voting period respects minimum review period | Yes |
| 5 | All claims cite evidence items | Yes |
| 6 | Conflict-of-interest complete | Yes |
| 7 | Treasury impact within tranche ceiling and above reserve floor | Yes |

---

## Scaffold 4 — Treasury Allocation Policy

Derived from `c9-resource-allocation-framework`. Fill the tranche structure for your DAO.

```yaml
# ─── TREASURY POLICY ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
treasury:
  currency: <USD | ETH | USDC | ...>
  total_balance_source: <account or on-chain address reference>

reserve_floor_pct: 20   # must remain unallocated at all times; adjusting requires parameter-update

tranches:
  - id: infrastructure
    ceiling_pct: 30
    period: annual
    decision_class: treasury-allocation
    disbursement_gate: milestone
    max_single_disbursement: <amount in currency>

  - id: contributor-rewards
    ceiling_pct: 35
    period: annual
    decision_class: treasury-allocation
    disbursement_gate: approval

  - id: retroactive-rewards
    ceiling_pct: 10
    period: annual
    decision_class: retroactive-reward
    disbursement_gate: approval
    no_self_vote: true

  - id: governance-operations
    ceiling_pct: 5
    period: annual
    decision_class: treasury-allocation
    disbursement_gate: approval

  - id: emergency
    ceiling_pct: 5
    period: annual
    decision_class: emergency-ratification
    disbursement_gate: immediate-then-ratification

  - id: unallocated
    ceiling_pct: ~   # remainder after other tranches + reserve

# Retroactive-reward eligibility rules
retroactive_reward_rules:
  - "Contribution delivered in full before proposal submission"
  - "Evidence of delivery required (commits, published work, third-party confirmation)"
  - "Nominee may not vote on their own reward"
  - "Amount grounded in rate table or market benchmark"
```

---

## Scaffold 5 — Accountability Dashboard

Derived from `c9-execution-accountability`. This is the live governance health view. Populate at each governance review cycle.

```yaml
# ─── ACCOUNTABILITY DASHBOARD ──────────────────────────────────────────────────
# Updated: <ISO 8601 date of last update>
# Reporting period: <e.g. 2026-Q2>

treasury_health:
  current_balance: <amount in currency>
  reserve_amount: <amount>
  reserve_ratio: <pct>
  reserve_status: <healthy | warning | breach>  # healthy ≥ 20%; warning 15–20%; breach < 15%
  unallocated_amount: <amount>
  unallocated_pct: <pct>
  unallocated_status: <healthy | over-committed | under-deployed>  # healthy 8–15%

active_proposals:
  - proposal_id: <id>
    decision_class: <class>
    status: <in-review | voting | veto-window | executing | delivered | retired>
    accountable: <role>
    next_action: <what must happen next>
    deadline: <ISO 8601>

milestone_tracker:
  - proposal_id: <id>
    milestone_id: <M1 | M2 | ...>
    status: <pending | in-progress | delivered | overdue | reverted>
    reviewer: <role>
    deadline: <ISO 8601>
    tranche_amount: <amount>

governance_indicators:
  quorum_fail_rate_last_period: <pct>     # target < 20%
  delivery_rate_last_period: <pct>        # target > 80% full delivery
  overdue_milestone_rate: <pct>           # target < 10%
  c11_emission_compliance: <pct>          # target 100%; any < 100% requires investigation
  processes_flagged_for_retirement: <count>

c11_provenance_log:
  - proposal_id: <id>
    decision_class: <class>
    outcome: <passed | rejected | vetoed | quorum-failed>
    c11_record_id: <UUID v7>
    emitted_at: <ISO 8601>
    evidence_pointer: <URI>
```

---

## Scaffold 6 — Governance Review Cadence

Derived from `c9-governance-mechanisms-spec §7`. Instantiate the review calendar for your DAO.

```yaml
# ─── GOVERNANCE REVIEW CADENCE ─────────────────────────────────────────────────
governance_id: <from Scaffold 1>

review_schedule:
  - type: treasury-health-report
    frequency: monthly
    owner: Treasurer
    output: "Updated Scaffold 5 treasury_health block"
    publish_to: <channel or URL>

  - type: proposal-pipeline-review
    frequency: monthly
    owner: Steward Council
    agenda:
      - Open proposals status
      - Stale proposals (> 30 days in review)
      - Quorum-fail rate trend
      - Processes flagged for retirement
    output: "Action log published within 48 hours of meeting"

  - type: governance-parameter-review
    frequency: annual
    owner: Steward Council
    scope:
      - Quorum thresholds per decision class
      - Approval thresholds
      - Tranche ceilings
    output: "`parameter-update` proposal if changes needed; otherwise 'no change' record"

  - type: charter-and-rights-review
    frequency: annual
    trigger_also: "Any contract-change proposal affecting charter scope"
    owner: Founding Steward
    scope:
      - Decision-class coverage
      - Exclusion list currency
      - Meta-governance rule enforcement record
    output: "`contract-change` proposal if changes needed; C11 record required for any MAJOR amendment"

  - type: working-group-performance-review
    frequency: per-charter-period
    owner: Steward Council
    scope:
      - Mandate delivery
      - Budget utilization
      - Reporting compliance
    output: "Renewal or dissolution recommendation"

# Retirement triggers — automatic flag after two consecutive periods
retirement_triggers:
  quorum_fail_rate_threshold: 0.40   # > 40% triggers review
  non_delivery_rate_threshold: 0.30  # > 30% triggers review
  reporting_lapse_periods: 2
  dormancy_periods: 2                # no proposals in N consecutive periods
```

---

## Worked Example — PP DAO Package Instantiation Summary

The Point Preserve DAO (PP DAO, 725 J D Miller Road, Santa Rosa Beach, FL) uses this six-scaffold package to govern STR revenue sharing, AI campus infrastructure investment, and GROW Library platform-contract amendments. `(illustrative)`

| Scaffold | PP DAO Instantiation Highlights |
|---|---|
| 1 — Charter | `governance_id: pp-dao`; treasury = STR revenue share + campus fees; excludes Special District Commissioner's public-office actions (governed by FL statute [VERIFY]) |
| 2 — Rights Matrix | 7 decision classes; `contract-change` supermajority (≥ 67%), 7-day veto window, Founding Steward single veto |
| 3 — Proposal Template | Standard form; `pp-dao-prop-2026-003` used for AI hardware refresh with 3 milestones |
| 4 — Treasury Policy | $240,000 (illustrative) total; 20% reserve; infrastructure 30%, contributor-rewards 35%, retroactive-rewards 10% |
| 5 — Dashboard | Updated monthly by Treasurer; C11 log maintained at 100% compliance target |
| 6 — Cadence | Monthly treasury + pipeline reviews; annual parameter + charter reviews; quarterly WG reviews |

## Usage Notes

Fill the scaffolds in order — each depends on the previous. Scaffold 1 scopes the governance; Scaffold 2 assigns the rights; Scaffold 3 is used for every proposal submitted; Scaffold 4 governs every disbursement; Scaffold 5 is updated at every governance-review cycle; Scaffold 6 is set once and executed on schedule. Mark all financial figures, dates, and grant identifiers `(illustrative)` until externally verified. Run the Scaffold 3 review checklist before every proposal enters the queue — skipping the checklist is the single most common source of governance-system failure in practice.