Apoyo esta propuesta.
Los Mission Board Members no trajeron nada positivo desde su rol a esta DAO.
8 Likes
Durante mucho tiempo estuvimos sin MB y estuvimos muy bien. Espero que podamos volver a esos tiempos.
Creía que la idea de tener un MB era para definir en cuestiones complicadas, y me parece que fue el causante de más problemas que soluciones.
6 Likes
This snapshot poll is invalid, it was released only 3 hours after a Phase 1. cc @v4len.eth @santisiri @0xjean.eth @Justin
1 Like
This whole controversy is tiring and boring and expensive. Accept defeat and move on.
Even though I’m not necessarily against dissolving the Mission Board, the proposal seems rushed to Phase 2 without allowing proper debate from the community. We should take time to talk about it. I’m inclined to favour the dissolution but we deserve a proper debate.
1 Like
There was plenty of discussion in this thread posted on September 11, including posts by @clesaege and @santisiri.
This was also discussed on Telegram groups, both public and private.
7 Likes
You have a point there. I forgot about that thread 
Specifically to this proposal though I think it’s good we allow time for it. That said, I favour the dissolution but it would be interesting if we allow for the dao to have ambassadors or some role able to represent it in the future. Just an idea.
1 Like
The only thing Mission Board members can do is politics, and they do it wrong. Let the community lead by actions and end the Mission Board failed experiment
8 Likes
Dissolving a last resource safeguard is DAO suicide. I vote to reject this HIP.
1 Like
Some thoughts about HIP-7 and why i’m agree with hip75. To be honest, I appeared here after the board became effective… So please, i’m open to hear what others have to say too.
Technical implementation of voting.
We can consider the changes needed for quadratic voting implementation. In that case, only Santi & Clement had the power to enable it.
Access to critical wallets.
Jean and Valen has no access to the gitcoin multisig wallet. Clement need to leave his signature too.
Access right to funds by management
I don’t understand the difference between the previous and this one. But i think it’s the same outcome.
Payment to employees.
We have no employees and no plans to have either.
Any resource requiring high trust by the community.
Snapshot administrators are only santi and clement. Again, Jean & Valen has no access and clement should leave his place.
I don’t know who manage this forum itself either, can anyone confirm?
In addition, the board will
Advise management, administer their payment, and monitor their performance.
Adjudicate if the proper procedure is followed on passing proposals.
I’ve been going over some problems with this myself. Some proposals were no hip5 complaint and had a high risk to be challenged in the governor, but no mbm worried too much
To be fair, the mission board ratification was a case of success. But it’s the only one.
Be authorized to issue mission statements on behalf of the DAO.
I don’t know if something like this happen .
Leaving hip7 aside, I understand that one of the important concern was to hire a solid team to lead the protocol. It never happen.
So, I prefer that we remove this political role. We do trust now in people who are not in a mission board seat, so I see no difference if the board is not here anymore. Then, we could establish new roles only for what it’s needed (snapshot / forum / small multisig treasury / etc)
7 Likes
If any of this happened, it is the MEMBERS responsability of their duties to make that happen, and not the institution itself. This is throwing the baby with the bathwater, and I think that @Mads would agree.
Buenos días, Comunidad. No quería dejar pasar la oportunidad que me da esta HIP , para dejar mi opinión desde una perspectiva de un HUMANO REGISTRADO de POH con muy poca participación en los foros y en los chat. Esta HIP me motivó a dar mi primera opinión en el foro ya que creo que justamente tiene relación con los registrados como yo que no estamos tan activos y que carecemos de conocimientos, pero no por eso , estamos ajenos de dimensionar el potencial que tiene el proyecto. Por eso, creo que es una buena oportunidad, que en esta hip se “recuerde” a los usuarios registrados y NO activos , los cuales, muchos por sus actividades diarias , están obligados a delegar su confianza en unos pocos, que bien o mal en definitiva son los que construyen, son los creadores, son los arquitectos de este proyecto. Dicho esto , creo que hay situaciones que requieren decisiones inmediatas y centralizadas , justamente para proteger los fundamentos y principios de este proyecto, como lo fué, si mal no recuerdo la recomendación de suspender las delegaciones a fines de prevenir el clientelismo y la manipulación de votos… Termino remarcando, lo pujante y friccionado que fue la elección de MB en la que Valen salió merecido ganador y que me parecería un despropósito desechar todo ese trabajo de la comunidad.Por eso mi voto será MAKE NO CHANGES.
Acción que fue revertids por críticas de la comunidad de ser una Acción centralizada no válida.
Todo puede ser manejado a través de votaciones sin la necesidad de un mission board.
Para cada tarea se votarán representantes específicos.
En vez de unos pocos con acceso a todo, muchos con acceso a poco
2 Likes
Tipo la elección de Product Manager?
No, tipo la eleccion de mission board members, pero para cargos especificos.
Para cargos específicos como ser la última linea de defensa en situaciones críticas, ofrecer intepretaciones de implementacion de HIPs?
Si necesitamos un rol que tiene que tomar deicisiones criticas, entonces hay un sistema que no esta funcionando por el otro lado. Sino vamos a estar emparchando errores en vez de corregir procesos.
Los mission board no pueden ser “los emparchadores oficiales”. Debe haber distintos cargos especificos. Se podria proponer que uno de esos roles sea algo como “Policy Interpretation Officer” , que no se si me agrada mucho, pero es un primer paso en opciones. No hay necesidad de un Mission Board
Apoyo entonces la creacion de todo eso antes de de disolver el Board. La nada misma en el medio, solo sirve para que se vuelvan a las dinámicas totalitarias de antes del Mission board.
Without someone having the power of interpretation of HIPs, how can we act on them?
I think this proposal should set up an alternative to the MB, rather than simply abolish it.
That said, I don’t see the problem with the MB as an organization. The members of our community are divided and divisive - the MB simply reflects this fact.
1 Like
It leads to unnecesary political noise that can happen outside the DAOs concerns