HIP: # 50
title: Clarify which of Proof of Humanity Telegram group belongs to the DAO
created: <date created on, in ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd) format>
This proposal looks to clarify the origins and support that comes from the Proof of Humanity DAO.
The proposals looks to change the links to the Telegram Groups that are currently supported by the DAO.
The motivation is related to the confusion related to which group belongs to the dao, given that in a post in the group of Proof of Humanity in Spanish, there was a statement that the Group was property of Kleros Cooperative. Reference: Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityenespanol see screen capture at the bottom of this text.
I propose the change to the official comm channels including the front-end maintained by the dao to the following Address in Telegram:
For Spanish Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityDAOes
For English Telegram: Contact @proofofhumanityDAOen
And the following Twitter accounts:
I agree with this. Not changing them quickly will generate more confusion. Also, this will grant more autonomy to the POH DAO.
Estoy de acuerdo con esto.
El link actual corresponde a un grupo que hoy no controla la DAO de PoH
Totalmente de acuerdo con esto…
Totalmente de acuerdo con esto!
Estoy de acuerdo con esto.
I agree with this.
Estoy de acuerdo con esto (a menos que Kleros renuncie a la propiedad y devuelva el grupo a la comunidad)
Comparto la opinión de Pablo.
Por mi parte no sé si regresar al grupo anterior ya que el cambio también es simbólico y marca un antes y un después para la DAO.
Ambos links llevan al grupo en español, puede ser?
Uh me confundí, ya modifico, gracias
For a proposal that looks hurried but received several affirmations in a day, one can only conclude that it was proposed and agreed upon out of emotional outburst.
I’d disagree with the proposal and respectfully request the proposer to retract and refrain from spamming the forum with proposals when impulsive.
I disagree with this proposal as it would generate confusion on users and a lot of works by volunteers will be lost as it means in a way a “start over”. It would also generate unnecessary conflict with Kleros.
I think the right way is to formally ask the POH DAO to make a formal request to the Kleros cooperative for the ownership of the orignal channels. Which I think sould be done in a more professional manner than telegram messages, polls, reactions and DM.
I think making new channels was done in a hasty manner and has many strategic disadvantages. And as far as I know it was not done throught a consensus following the regular channels (governance forums, etc…)
Thanks for the feedback!
Hi, I just changed the wording to appear less impulsive. I don’t see the hurry here, this is a Phase 1 and I am posting it to spark the debate we need to have. It has shown momentum and it is compliant with governance guidelines.
Regarding impulsivity, I feel personally offended of this personal attacks which are also irrelevant to the core of the proposal.
Will proceed when there is more clarity about the situation but will not retract this proposal, which has also gained traction by the community.
Dear people subscribed to this HIP. I have re-formatted and updated the HIP to fit HIP-5 specifications. Please re-read it since it differed significantly from the first draft. Will not move forward the HIP until there is a clarification.
I believe it’s not a good idea to vote on which groups should appear on the UI. And I would prefer if all groups are listed.
I don’t think the current front-end is the property of the DAO, and I believe it is out of the DAO scope.
The current front-end is being maintained by Kleros, I believe that any person or entity that chooses to host a front-end should have the freedom to choose which groups they point to.
I would love to see a HIP that proposes the hosting of a new front-end, owned and maintained by people appointed by the DAO. I believe it would be an important step to the POH DAO sovereignty.
That said, the group mentioned didn’t have any admin or moderator that was voted by the DAO, did not follow HIP-16, so I see no reason to prefer it over the other group.
I suggest that rather than pointing to a specific channel we should designate a democratically elected group to manage ‘official’ channels (exclusive from MB). To be considered ‘official’ the channel has to be managed by this group. Otherwise, we are just changing from a channel managed by one arbitrary group to another.
Estoy de acuerdo con esto, evidentemente el link actual corresponde a un grupo que, segun advirtio uno de los admins no es propiedad de la DAO de PoH.
Si deberian figurar otros grupos o no, eso deberia consensuarse, lo prioritario seria desvincular a la DAO de un grupo administrado tan autoritariamente, doy fe de esto ya que eh sido victima del autoritarismo de uno de sus admins.
I agree with this, obviously the current link corresponds to a group that, according to one of the admins, is not owned by the PoH DAO.
Whether other groups should be included or not, that should be agreed, the priority would be to disassociate the DAO from a group managed so authoritatively, I attest to this since I have been a victim of the authoritarianism of one of its admins.
Totalmente de acuerdo con esta hip.
Taking in consideration the many different groups that have emerged from the community, it would be positive for the DAO to legitimize which ones should be the official ones.
let’s think of a proper voting process and move forward to Phase 2
To the people following this thread hit a like button if you would like to add the DAO controlled twitter accounts: