Feels like an overkill to suddenly start a board revolution because a proposal wasn’t posted.
Pricing posting in UBI is a decent spam prevention technique.
Well if the board were to censor proposals, I think a revolution would be well deserved and not overkill.
In practice due to the fact that having at least 1 non malicious board member is enough to prevent censorship and that at most board members, if they were all malicious, could delay proposals by a month at the price of being revoked, I would bet that it would never happen in practice (if you don’t think so I’m happy to get a prediction market about that).
1 Like
Isn’t it better simply not giving the board this power?
I have put forward two polls that Clement asked me to take down due to technical errors, causing some confusion. I find it better, less confusing to the community if all official votes are required to go through a board member. When they are there - then they are official voting proposals. It also clearly separates opinion/support polls from official ones.
@clesaege, I would add that the “Change the board composition”-vote must reference the proposal that has not been put to the vote.
2 Likes
Snapshot moderation is needed. I support this proposal, but also agree with @santisiri that boards should generally not be operational. As this community grows moderating the HIP process could easily be a full time job. So I would see this change as a good solution today. When the time comes we can propose a new role or moving the responsibilities to a new hire (such as a community manager).
1 Like
Yes, the board is a bit of a mish-mash of everything right now. When we have a better overview of all the resposibilities we need, we can re-structure.
2 Likes
The administrator of snapshot already has this technical power. This proposal doesn’t increase anyone power but specifies this power is only technical, not discretionary and provides a failsafe would someone abuse its technical power.
In this case we can allow board members to delegate snapshot moderation (but still hold them ultimately responsible would censorship happen).
4 Likes
The proposal didn’t pass to phase 2 (everyone voted for except Santi) and the Snapshot interface is very clogged with spam proposal (4/4 of the front page being spam).
Please @santisiri if you want to propose a change we can find something which would suit you. Otherwise we’ll just need to organize to get this passed.
Since the last phase 2 failed due to just 2 voters (one of which just started enforcing it anyways by restricting proposal submissions). I believe it is likely to pass now and I’m resubmitting it to phase 2.
Until further clarification of proper HIP-5 procedures, this resubmission should be considere invalid on the premises that it did not re-start from Phase-1, as HIP-5 mandates.
If not, this proposal could be challenged in the governor due to this non-compliance.
I dont think giving the power to board members and delegates to create Proposals is a solution.
I believe the solution should come from snapshot Labs adding the capabilities to define a strategy for creating Proposals, or using a different/custom polling service
1 Like
Asking for a quorum to make proposals would be good, but we don’t develop snapshot. The current state is now that board members can decide which proposals to put to vote and I don’t think it’s good.
This proposal remove the discretionary power and allows community to take back control in case the board would misbehave.
The mechanism for taking back control from the board requires that a new board composition is defined, which would generate friction, given that defining a new composition is not a small task. Or am I missing something?
Well at this point if all the board is malicious, a new board is definitely needed.
“Board members do not have any discretion in whether a proposal is put to vote or not.”
So this could only happen if all the board members (and delegates) are violating this HIP.
Another case where it could happen would be if board members would be prevented from doing so due to legal liabilities. But since they can delegate to whomever they want, we would probably see some anonymous delegates able to put that to vote anyways.
1 Like
I voted MAKE NO CHANGE, but would be willing to change my vote as long as this is a temporary solution while exploring better mechanisms.
3 Likes
One of the concerns I heard is that people are unwilling to rely on the board for posting proposals since they believe the board might not be responsive enough, or that it might generate some attrition when requesting the proposals to be posted.
So I have a couple of questions:
- Can the board agree to post the proposals in the same day they are requested, most of the time?
- Can we ask at least one of the board members to delegate this power to someone from the greater community that might be more responsive?
Also:
- Any takers for this unofficial “proposoor” role?
1 Like
This is solved by
Board members can just make a lot of delegates. I’d delegate to anyone who is not a known spammer.
Due to its motivation now becoming incorrect, I withdrew HIP-23 and replaced it with HIP-34.
They are almost functionally identical except that it also allows to have proposers unrelated to the board.
The motivation has also been changed to reflect the fact that Santi has restricted posting and that it’s effect is now not about preventing spam but preventing board discretionary power on proposals.