If you vote in a poll for options A,B,C,D and E, and option A is the winner with the majority of votes, A is the majority opinion. Categorical variables do not average themselves, so the “average being close to 2 years” is not a valid outcome in that opinion poll.
In reality what is being sought is consensus on the number of years, note how the consensus of the participating population tends to 2 logical preponderances,
50% one year (or perhaps less, since the poll does not reflect this).
50% two years or more (which indeed is reflected in the poll).
Given the main objective of the poll, which is to find the majority point of consensus, a more accurate reflection of the participants’ thinking is necessary. And a quantitative poll, as opposed to a qualitative structure, allows you to perform this type of analysis and implementation.
On the other hand, given that the ultimate purpose of having forums and debates and establishing consensus in a dao is precisely to find options that reflect the thinking of the majority, I would advocate taking into account the true purpose of the poll and establishing a more accurate time given the results.
Presumably the options could also have been:
Or even divided into quarters or months directly, and we would then have the same result if what we want to know is the exact calculation of the dao’s thinking as to the time needed for whatever it is that needs to be agreed upon.
Is it though? Or is it that 49% (if the poll is representative) would support an HIP that says 1 year, but if the HIP says 2 years then this HIP would have less support?
HIPs are approved by simple majority vote.
We could make a poll for quantity of total hours instead of years, semesters, quarters or months as well. Then support for each particular option would be tiny and anyone would not support whatever magic number they inputed in that poll. Let’s not atomize the general will of the DAO and let us be reasonable about this.
In the end it will be the author’s call to decide.
I also agree with Valen that a lot of things heppened after each MB democratically elected happened (one is missing in action for most of the duration of his mandate, other two supported a coup over a telegram group). One year is enough for the real colours of a MBM to be shown and asking for the vote of confidence from the DAO every year (about 5 “crypto-years” if we go by how eventful things are in this space) is not something to be scared about.
A third way to all of this could be something like this: the first term of a mission board can be 1 year, and in case of a second term victory, the second term can be of 2 years.
I agree with this now. It should be average or median, since it’s the value that will generate the less discomfort to the majority.
Mode is the most naively democratic, but it doesn’t have simple majority. It’s just the most popular option, not the winner.
Median is the most practically democratic.
Also, note there was no previous agreement on how to figure out a decision after the voting.
What about repeating the poll with just 1, 1.5, and 2 years?
I think “1.5” deserves a chance since there is quite a big step between 1 and 2. On the other hand, quarters seem too granular to me.
Sounds good to me!
calculating periods of 18 months (or 1.5 years)… or any kind of non-annual period… isn’t good governance ux and it’s hard to keep track of.
also short periods are not good for long term planning that helps create stability… permanent campaigning is tiresome and leads to the politicization of even the tiniest of affairs.
i would recommend 2 years.
That is a good point, using half years makes it a pain to figure out when the date is up. With full years it the end date is simply the same as the election date.
this is my last post before phase 2.
this poll its from july 26. 51% votes to 1 year. i think the phase 2 has to be between 1 and 2 years. i will post it today.