[Phase-2] HIP 60 - Removal of Justin Kalland of the Mission Board

DAO
5

Another idea would be for MB to be elected with a replacement candidate which would reduce the amount of required votes.

3 Likes
6

Those ideas should get another hip!

7

Did Justin indicate that he would not be present if there was a tie? I believe he was active the last time we needed his input.

I believe it’s important to say that the MB HIP did not specify that the MB should be active in the groups, for example. If we want that, then it’s a good idea to add that in the description of the role. MBs are not community managers.

Other MBs were even more inactive than Justin, and that was not a reason for requesting their removal, so this seems a bit arbitrary.

That said, I would love him to come back, has anyone tried to contact him lately?

2 Likes
8

I have tried to reach out to @Justin via Signal and Telegram. He appeared during our “democratic summer” to vote… but haven’t heard back from him recently.

I tend to agree with @clesaege that it’s probably better to have a standard mechanism in place rather than an ad hoc solution to this kind of situation.

1 Like
9

I agree with @clesaege and @santisiri about proper rules for removal of inactive MBM. I am willing to contribute to that

BUT

Since those rules will require time for the community to coordinate ideas and agree on multiple topics, i support proceeding with this HIP, asap.

1 Like
10

Let MB members vote whether if a member is to be considered inactive.
If the MB is obviously not active, yet the MB confabulates to kick them out, it’s still considered part of the MB.

1 Like
11

If any, the last thing you want to give a mission board is to decide the entrance, permanence or leave of another member of the board. These are DAO voted officials, so the DAO by the power of collective will should decide.

3 Likes
12

I agree with @ludovico on this one… the MB shouldn’t have veto power over itself. checks and balances ftw!

13

Can I ask why do you think it must be done ASAP?

14

anxious personality :man_shrugging:

15

thanks, I literally lol’ed and did not expect this response :laughing:

16

Alright, make it an HIP so that any MB member can call for a vote of kicking a MB due to being inactive (with some proof).
And it’s a vote that can be created straight to Binding stage in snapshot

17

Why does it have to be an MB member?

1 Like
18

Because then anyone can go and spam [Binding] votes. The rationale behind making it a different process is prevent having to do a whole HIP process per inactive removal.

19

So? Let them spam those votes, fwiw an mb member can do that as well… are you familiar with the concept of checks and balances? Separation of powers - Wikipedia

The MB should not have veto power over itself. It’s basic governance design 101.

20

Well, letting a single MB start a vote over an inactive MB member has:

  • Spam protection vs “Anyone can create a [Binding] vote to kick out inactive MB”
  • Only requires a single honest MB to start

The execution is not decided by the MB, but by everyone, as a regular [Binding] vote.

21

I believe the Proposer role could be a good option, since it includes more trusted members. [Phase 3] HIP-38: Election of Proposers

We could maybe vote to elect more Snapshot proposers in the next couple of months.

1 Like
23

Link to phase 2 poll
https://snapshot.org/#/poh.eth/proposal/0x4a9a76fe1bb090b6065b09e90d43aa0afe40673ea04c0d162a0b1299471fa815

24

Voting no. Lets remover the MB as a position.

25

The issue about the Board should have it`s own thread.
It does not follow the fact that you are in favour of dissolving the Board with this voting. The logic is flawed.