[Phase 2] HIP-18: Communication roles

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:

  1. Clarification of the voting method
  2. Higher standard for administrator conduct
  3. 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