As Persistence One ecosystem participation is building momentum, and proposals get voted on by the majority of the community and validators within the first few hours/days, I suggest to reduce the voting period from the current 5 days to 3 days.
This will contribute to the expedited implementation of features on pSTAKE & Dexter.
Please share your thoughts and opinions here!
There are two consequences to this: on the plus side, it does boost the flexibility & reactivity of the chain and associated services.
But it also makes it difficult to analyze deeply proposals that are complex or that cause a rift in the community (e.g., the proposal 848 on Cosmos).
Sometimes, 3 days is simply not enough to take a decision, which could adversely affect the outcome of a proposal (valid one being rejected, bad one passing because most validators would have voted Abstain…).
So I’m a little conflicted here.
I’m (kind of) with @High_Stakes on this one.
Three days of voting would be ok because we’ve got the forum - to discuss proposals before they go on-chain. So 3 days would be enough in an ideal scenario where proposals are all discussed on a forum before on-chain voting.
Some proposals don’t require this discussion, though. Validators could always vote “no” where more discussion is necessary.
I would prefer to stick to 5 days.
3 days is ok, since it allows validators some time to participate in governance.
But 5 just gives more room to breathe and have a decent conversation.
In an ideal world everyone would participate on the forum, making governance more of a formality. But sadly we are not at that stage.
Where is the biggest bottleneck regarding governance? Is that for the development of Dexter? Maybe find an alternative route for low-effect proposals like adding pools and such?
That’s right.
If there was a forum discussion before and the vote is a mere formality, it works.
And if there was no such discussion, then it could warrant an automatic No…
Not ideal anyway, but then again, we can manage.
What would be interesting, in fact, would be the option to have an “expedited proposal” type in addition to the normal one, requiring for example a very large deposit to fend off those who’d think of taking advantage of the short voting period 
Less easy and quick to implement though.
Osmosis has the “Expedited” type, which requires a higher quorum of VP to vote in favor within 24hrs. If that quorum is met, the proposal can be executed immediately.
If the quorum is not met within that short timeframe, the proposal auto-converts into a standard proposal with the standard 5-days voting duration.
The ‘Expedited’ type makes a lot of sense in this moment because i went through the last 15 proposals on core-1 chain and most of them are generic type.
I think we should implement that and of-course as @High_Stakes & @CosmonautStakes suggested, we can have a proposal discussion on the forum first for all the critical ones.
Thank you @High_Stakes @CosmonautStakes & @LeonoorsCryptoman for your valuable suggestions and opinions 
I’d like to keep the voting period to 5 days.
Observations from other projects suggest that shorter voting periods can lead to decisions being made without comprehensive review and discussion.
To mitigate this risk while facilitating a reduction in the voting timeframe, I propose implementing a structured process for thorough discussion within the forums prior to voting.
what if, what if. We still decrease to 3 days and make the default vote as NO. 