[ARFC] ARFC and TEMP CHECK Framework

[MarcZeller]

@Michigan_Blockchain

In the future, could we also have some guidelines on, at the ARFC stage, which service providers’ input are needed for each type of proposals? For example, for proposals regarding onboarding new oracles, who are the relevant service providers in addition to BGD?

This is good feedback, will publish a framework on this shortly

@lbsblockchain

With regard to @TokenLogic’s comments on the Supply/Borrow Caps, if changes are to be made to those we agree that we should only have a single Snapshot vote. However, new listings on a new Aave deployment, regardless of whether it is present on another deployment, should require a TEMP CHECK as well since conditions across chains (e.g., liquidity) can materially differ.

We agree, these cases should be covered, voted and integrated in existing guidelines

@lbsblockchain

Further additions to this framework could include more details around AIPs and specifically where proposals could directly go to the AIP stage and where it may not be appropriate to do so.

This framework is the “general purpose” one, designed to act as the basic template for proposals, exceptions to these frameworks for specific cases will be voted on separately such as current “cap update framework” that is currently discussed to be updated as a “direct-to-Aip” framework allowing governance to bypass current framework for specific actions.