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.