I disagree with @knoshua’s conclusion, but the sentiment absolutely resonates with me.
Given where we are now, I would prefer that this have an RPIP and get voted on by the pDAO. If it fails to get ratified by the pDAO, the feature should get removed from Houston.
I absolutely agree that it does feel like we currently have a 2-tier system. The component of RPIP-30 that needs a smart contract change has been largely unchanged since the initial draft merged September 3rd. If we’re proactively developing ahead of votes, that seems like it should have gotten attention. On the opposite end, the team have routinely talked about what the Houston upgrade is prior to vote; language matters and I really wish we were careful to have phrases reinforcing the pDAO as the decision maker such as “the team is hoping to include”, “pending ratification”, “if the pDAO accepts it” etc. One possible path that could help here is having high level votes (“let’s move the pDAO onchain”) and follow-up detailed votes that fully specify things.
For now, I’m chalking this up to “learning how to DAO effectively”, and hoping to see us get better over time.