Most probably HIP-16 will be voted in the binding phase sooner, we were talking about voter fatigue in HIP 16, what will this lead to?
On the other hand HIP-5 governs the HIP methods, there is no regulation on conflicting HIPs and that should be discussed in an amendment to HIP 5, not in a paragraph of a voting of something considered “minor” (comparing to HIP implementation).
The resolution of conflicting proposals should be another hip and it should be voted and discussed separately.
I think that HIP 18, 19 and 16. are things that should be legislated in the same HIP
administrator roles, their code of conduct and codes of conduct for their members. removal and election of community members taking into account natural law, human rights, Vienna Convention treaties.
I rescue from the latter the non-retroactivity of the fundamental law in all world constitutions.
I have seen some discussions on a social broadcast channel wanting to make the LAW / HIP retroactive, approved after the conflicts
Creo que HIP 18, 19 y 16. son cosas que se deberían legislar en el mismo HIP
roles de administrador, su código de conducta y códigos de conducta para sus miembros. remoción y elección de miembros de la comunidad teniendo en cuenta la ley natural, los derechos humanos, los tratados de la Convención de Viena.
Rescato de este último la irretroactividad de la ley fundamental en todas las constituciones del mundo.
He visto algunas discusiones en un canal de transmisión social queriendo hacer retroactiva la LEY / HIP, aprobada después de los conflictos.
Where did you see that? I think everyone here agree that rules cannot be retroactive. It could be something to vote and “lock”.
I have voted against this proposal for the following reasons:
-
Allowing for delegations kills the entire point of democratically electing people for these roles.
-
The method for the community to select Admins would cause serious voter fatigue and noise in the community.
Finally, I hope that those who are supporting this have taken the time to read through all of the changes we made to HIP-16, integrating the feedback of the community, and can now support it. It is now an extraordinary proposal and a truly communal effort.
1 Like
People receiving delegations and which could be removed at any time by the elected com members ensure that delegates are aligned with the elected com members. For example electing a mayor instead of individual street cleaners doesn’t “kills the entire point of deciding of the city administration via an election”.
I don’t really understand that part, 1 once per year and only when there are a sufficient amount of candidates is made to avoid voter fatigue.
part 2 is confusing. What be the scope and what implementation would it have in practice? Does the administration reach GRAO? If so, then it conflicts with hip 7 [A mission board position is incompatible with any other paid or elected position in the DAO.]
Until there are people elected, the board members assume the administration. This is not another elected position. Those are currently missions of the board according to HIP-7 “Any resource requiring high trust by the community” so the proposal just gives some clarifications.
Since all major points were integrated into HIP-16, I do not see the point of having 2 proposals with almost similar ideas, since it would really generate voting fatigue (3 votings for one proposal is just too much). By chronological precedence and amount of support, I am voting No to this proposal to pass to Phase 3.
I strongly oppose to this HIP, it’s unethical, incoherent, abuse of power and misleading, I’m in the day by day in this project and as I stated on the Telegram group channels, this will also consequently slow the PM + dev process.
It technically says that the mission board controls social platforms which conflicts with hip 7. On the other hand, limiting three members to access the position for a period of one year, I think it would be excessively heavy for the admin role that usually appears and disappears in a more organic way. In addition, today the community is small, the number of positions should grow in proportion to the size of the social network and a year is a very rigid time for a position that arises spontaneously and by vocation.
1 Like
the clause is imprecise and should be reformulated. As it is written inaccurately, it can be dangerously used by a malicious actor in the future.
1 Like
That’s exactly what delegations allow.
Actually no, delegations revert the situation to pre HIP status, in which delegation already occurs. This hip is devoid of force if passed.
I am strongly against giving unlimited delegation rights to voted admins.
Couldnt some limit to this delegation be applied? Like a max of 2 delegations allowed for each elected admin, or that delegations have to be proposed to other elected admins before taking effect?
This HIP mentions that there is a conflicting proposal and that this conflict could be fixed with a further vote to decide which of the two is finally approved. Maybe there could be a system in which the community could vote between two different HIPs that pursue similar objectives, that is a very interesting discussion which merits a different thread.
Another imprecise clause should be reformulated, the mission board must act as a body that represents the community, therefore it should not act unilaterally, the dismissal of an admin, which should be for well-founded reasons a point to be taken into account later , should be implemented by the mission board as a body, which should be decided publicly among all its members by voting, by majority and advance as a body only in case of having a majority, no member of the mission board should act unilaterally.
That point has already been criticized by several, there is no point in all this fuss of choosing admins if it is later disabled by an internal clause of delegating, it makes no sense to choose and then delegate someone not chosen by the community, it is absurd!
Ho thanks for pointing this out. For it was obvious that it would be a community vote, not a board vote.
HIP-18 didn’t pass the signalling phase.
I however consider that as a success as out of the 3 changes proposed:
- Clarification of the voting method
- Higher standard for administrator conduct
- Delegations
The changes 1. and 2. were included in HIP-16 making the new version of HIP-16 a median proposition between the first version of HIP-16 and HIP-18 and I invite people still interested by election of admin positions to vote for it.
Although hip 18 did not move on to the next phase, let me express my biggest concern regarding hip 18.
This part seems to me the most dangerous and delicate to take into account. To propose that an Admin cannot express an opinion against poh or any “related” project is to bring to a decentralized democratic governance project, the worst of centralized governments in the world with dictatorial tendency authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Although at first glance it may seem something worthy of sanction for someone with a position in the Dao to make virulent expressions, the economic - political processes of our history have taught us that this mechanism is widely used to silence the opposition, any opinion can be transformed virulent in the eyes of the opposition. On the other hand, the code of conduct for an admin could simply be in line with hip 19 that reaches the entire community and seems much clearer and more precise, unlike someone with a position in the Dao would constantly submit and rigorous to community scrutiny.
I believe that this point is important to take into account in future hips since they are the foundations that we will inherit to future generations of proof of humanity.
FYI HIP-16 included this clause, I suggest redirecting your criticism to this thread: [Phase-3] HIP-16: Make admin roles of communication platforms eligible - #32 by 0x6687c671980e65ebd722b9146fc61e2471558dd6_Ethereum
2 Likes