[Phase 2] HIP 48 - Removal of Clement Lesaege as mission board member

[clesaege]

I had already to defend myself on this previous post.

In between we had an election that Luis lost. He is now trying to change the result of the election.

But I will try to answer as best as possible all the concerns put there:

@ludovico

Obstructing normal governance procedures. There is a recent incident in which the proposers for HIPs on Snapshot was unilaterally deleted, against the advice from the other admin of the platform Santi Siri, because it was being done without proper consultation with the DAO.

This isn’t true. I never deleted any HIP.
Someone had created a “proposal” which didn’t allow people to vote against.
HIP-5 specifies some requirements for proposals and this was clearly not a proposal.

@ludovico

This later issue, along with the creation of HIP-34 itself (which dramatically decreases open participation for proposals), created a situation that now requires two different and new HIPs to solve the issue.

I don’t really understand what Luis is pointing out there. I proposed HI¨P-34 which was voted 234 votes against 62. It has been shown to have successful at removing spam (previously we were getting people using the proposal functionality for spam for ads and scams) from the snapshot while protecting the DAO from potential malicious snapshot administrator.

@ludovico

An unsuccessful attempt to remove a valid admin from the Telegram group (for the record, I was the admin asked to be removed).

Luis is talking about the English telegram that we had created. I effectively believe that Luis behaviors is not that of an admin which should try to resolve conflicts and not be inflammatory.

@ludovico

Disregarding serious security threats to the registering process (metadata issue): When warned about this issue, Clement lowered the priority of a huge security threat in which personal georeferencing data was being leaked into the registry profiles. In a forum post he mentioned that having personal data leaked was “a nice thing to have”

This is completely false. I never said that having personal data leaked was a nice thing to have. I said that removing metadata was a nice thing to have. Here Luis is inverting the sense of my speech.
Note that at the moment of the issue PoH was very early and there was a lot of bugs and it was not possible to record video from within the interface. My stance was that we should focus on allowing videos to be recorded from the interface (as the interface doesn’t create metadata for those).
On the topic of issue prioritization I made a tokenlog which allows the community to vote via quadratic voting in order to signal devs which issues should be a priority.

@ludovico

Systematically obstaculizing any process that helps humans register (352, vouchallengers, etc) sometimes suggesting that challenges are good and vouch-and-challenge attacks are part of the normal mechanism:

@ludovico

Example 1, stating against better explanation of proper vouching Incentivize better, more responsible vouching - #2 by clesaege

That is not what I said, see the thread.

@ludovico

Example 2, stating that the only way to keep deposits low is keeping the challenges high Challenges and removals - ¿it’s always fair? - #10 by clesaege

@clesaege

Note that the loss of deposits should be enough to incentivize people to watch the list for incorrect submissions.
If the rate of challenge is lowered, the deposit will need to be increased to keep compensating people guarding the list (like 1% challenge and 1 ETH deposit would bring the same revenue to challengers than 10% challenges and 0.1ETH deposit). I think it’s better to keep the deposit low instead of the challenge rate low.

I never said it was the only way. I believe supporting cheaper platforms (Gnosis chain or a rollup) is the way to lower deposits. I however pointed out that to keep the same level of incentivization of challenger, if there are fewer challenges, deposits needs to be higher for it to still be worth it for challengers to verify the submissions (as those are only paid on successful challenges).

@ludovico

Example 3, falsely accusing of being “undemocratic” a democratic poll [Hiring] Product Manager - #68 by clesaege and this is critical for someone holding veto power in snapshot.

This is true that the poll was not following HIP-5 and thus had nothing to do on the main snapshot. Note that there is now a poll snapshot for those.
Also note that thanks to HIP-34 that I proposed, I don’t have veto power of snapshot voting.

@ludovico

Example 4, saying that it is “perfectly fine” and having the opportunity to withdraw from a mistake is a “courtesy” and not a right.

Sure, the withdrawal functionality was created to allow people to get back their deposit if they don’t find vouchers, not to allow for correcting mistakes. If people can uses it for that purpose that’s great.

@ludovico

Following the previous point, making Proof of Humanity a dispute-creating machine.

This is not true, we worked into clarifying some rules and we proposed to lower the amount of jurors in HIP-17 in order to lower deposits and the amount paid to jurors during a dispute.

@ludovico

Sabotaging or lack of respect to proper procedure

• Arguing about voter fatigue in proposals that he disagreed with, creating voter fatigue in proposal cloning in order to match his own individual standards.

Yes, I believe the DAO should focus on important votes or use systems where a full DAO vote is not required for small issues.
The HIP-18 that I proposed actually had most of its changes included in the phase 3 of HIP-16 thus has been useful for governance.

@ludovico

Under-specifying regulations so that he can later interpret the normative as he unilaterally thinks (basically all the hips he authored, including HIP-34)

That is obviously false and I always prefer to have everything clear. Moreover I’m not the only one interpreting as we have a board of 5 people for that.

@ludovico

Lack of proper spirit of collaboration with the community, evidenced by lack of participation in main groups.

I obviously spend more time building (and collaborating with other builders) than talking on channels and forums. However, I spend a significant amount of time on this forum and in the telegram group (a proof being that Luis managed to find a lot of things I said there to disagree with).

@ludovico

Stalling the hiring process to the point that the actuall hiring was put in hibernation [Hiring] Product Manager.

• It is worth also noting the contradiction with other comments in which he stated that hiring should be done fast [Hiring] Developer - #5 by clesaege

This obviously false. I am the one who proposed to hire people (see this proposal, note that it was before HIP-5). I also put offers on a job board, talked with people interested and even contacted people having a similar idea to try to get them to be hired by PoH instead. However those attempts were unfruitful, most people dropped of the application process when they had to go on the forum, the people with the similar idea ended up doing their own competing project (which has now failed).
I definitely thing hiring is very important, but with current amount of funding it’s quite hard to find good candidates.
I am still trying and have a talk with a potential worker in a few days, but due to ETH price DAO holdings are very low and we may need to find a solution for the funding.

@ludovico

Taking decisions in the background without proper consultation to DAO members, or disregarding alternative perspectives.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” (see Hitchen’s razor )

@ludovico

Not acknowledging the issues regarding the concentration and dominance of a priviledge few in the Kleros Humanity Court and not doing anything to prevent such an abnormal degree of centralization.

The proof of humanity court is quite decentralized (see repartitions there). For example it is more decentralized than Ethereum mining.
Even with that we discussed about making a PNK airdrop to people registered to increase the amount of people registered in the court.

@ludovico

This HIP was left on hold since its creation, but recent events regarding removal of dissenting members of the DAO from telegram channels have sparked the interest of the community to move forward with this proposal.

Luis actually removed 2 board members (myself and Shin) from the administration of the telegram. After that Federico removed him and gave admin rights to board members.
The board then agreed to nominate moderators for this channel.