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.
4 Likes
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…)
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
14 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Totalmente de acuerdo con esta hip.
1 Like
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
1 Like
To the people following this thread hit a like button if you would like to add the DAO controlled twitter accounts:
@PoHDAO
and
@PoHDAOenespanol
1 Like
Apoyo esta idea. Necesitamos aclarar formalmente los grupos donde la DAO se vea representada. El grupo anterior nunca fue propiedad de la misma.
Junto con esto, también legitimizaria las cuentas de Twitter: @pohdao como Twitter internacional, y @pohdaoenespanol como Twitter de habla hispana.
Además de nuestro servidor de discord.
Cabe aclarar que todos los grupos deberían seguir los códigos de conducta ya establecidos, cómo también las formas de gobernanza. (Admin, mod, etc)
2 Likes
In order to “officialize” communication channels, there should be a registry that states this, that is actually OWNED by the DAO.
Here is a proposal for Phase 3 to make a real legitimization of communication channels:
- Create a smart contract that acts as a registry of communication channels and social media, that are OFFICIAL to the DAO Eg:
PohCommunicationChannels.sol - This smart contract should be simple enough that only contains a string, pointing to an IPFS file, which contains all the information of the official channels
- The HIP should express that the smart contract officializes the channels added to the registry
- The smart contract should be
ownableandownershipshould be given to the PoH Governor (which is the only SC that actually represents THE DAO)
This way, communication channels are officialized ON CHAIN, given that any change to the registry requires a modification through the GOVERNOR (using HIPs)
1 Like
Will be added to phase 3
So you mean that groups you control should be the official ones instead of the ones that are administrated by the board?
Currently the situation is clear, no group follows HIP-16. If one does, I will support it being designated as official but before that it just looks like a power grab by the group owner.
3 Likes
Is there any clarification on how the Twitter accounts and groups will be managed? Ownership, moderators, people with access to posting…
It really does feel rushed to vote this HIP without having more clarification.
Also, why not just add a list of groups that are official, and include the ones managed by the MB?
6 Likes
Estoy de acuerdo con el primer punto.
Creo que en fase 3 se podría aclarar la situación de las redes para que tambien sea consensuado por la DAO.
I will not further pursue this HIP. Anyone who wants to continue with it, feel free to do so.
No continuaré con esta HIP. Quien quiera seguir empujandola, que se sienta libre de hacerlo.
I see the proposal being put to vote without addressing any of these concerns. It’s definitely being rushed, and that’s detrimental to the DAO.
For example:
- Who will be the owner of these telegram groups?
- Will we be able to vote on the admins or moderators?
- How can someone that wants to help with the Twitter account might be able to join?
- Why not add these groups and keep the other groups as well?
Another detail:
“Change to the official comm channels including the front-end maintained by the dao to the following Address in Telegram:”
Currently the only front-end is maintained by Kleros. Wouldn’t it be better if each party hosting and maintained front-ends could decide which telegram groups / twitter accounts they can point to?
4 Likes