When CoW DAO creation was proposed, it was decided to go with simple governance process and adapt over time if needed. This means ATM CoW DAO doesn’t have specialized proposal types with different requirements. I personally still think that keeping the status quo of simple gov process is the right decision.
It is possible to propose “constitutional” governance rules that require higher quorum and/or more elaborate governance process for introducing “constitutional” changes. Would love to read such proposal although again, in my opinion it is not necessary at this point in time.
It is important to differentiate between some soft governance process rules which are defined in the forum post and “hard” governance parameters. Soft gov process rules include the forum discussion requirement and are enforced by the community and not directly by any Snapshot or oSnap parameters.
Then there are hard governance rules that are defined in CoW DAO’s Snapshot space, and require a full gov proposal to change (those parameters CANNOT be changed by changing a forum post although there are still a number of admins that are able to make such changes on snapshot in principle)
- Voting eligibility (vCOW+COW on mainnet and Gnosis Chain)
- Quorum (35m COW)
- Voting period
And finally there is the proposal execution method which in my opinion is not part of the governance process. It is an admin process of the DAO for executing valid proposals that have passed quorum. The old DAO admin process required signers to manually verify and execute transactions. Thanks to the above proposal there is now an improved admin process for execution of proposals.
Of course, also the new admin process includes verification of the validity of proposals, but it is not changing the status quo for which proposal are considered valid or not (governance process and parameters).