“eligible for election” is probably correct.
that is the reason why the scope of the admin is in the HIP and the moderator is not. There is no need to define everything that it is not in the scope of the HIP, if you know what I mean.
Actually, my recent experience shows that in practice, the act assigning an admin role may appear as the way to suppress their opinion (something in the lines of “your dissenting opinion cannot be expressed, since you are an admin”).
Hi @ludovico ,
I think the proposal is being rushed through as there is no point in the Elections section on what to do if an admin goes missing and a new admin needs to be assigned, do you suggest an emergency vote gets triggered? You have to remember admins are volunteers and can churn pretty quickly, this would lead to voter fatigue as @clesaege and @Justin pointed out, I don’t think this proposal addresses that completely that is why I am voting to make no changes, YET!
Perspective I guess. IMO (having managed large communities, ran a social network, so hundreds of thousands interacting in channels) admins shouldn’t express opinions as Admins, or use their power (just posting as an Admin carries power) towards personal opinions. It is why you often see anonymous or protected admin usernames, and participation of the personal side by a regular account (sometimes disclosed, sometimes not, I prefer not).
Thanks @iafhurtado and @Justin.
@iafhurtado if you’re familiar with HIP-5, this proposal is currently in phase 2 and it is not binding, so there is no rushing. The voting on this phase it is just a signal to say that this is worth or not worth a discussion. Do you still think it is not? Now it is a chance to make amendments and reach a consensus. A modification could be made to have a list of equal amount of applicants and substitutes admin, in case something like this happens. I don’t see the current admins getting churned or even willing to leave their roles, and they’ve been there from the beginning.
@justin, I totally see your point. How do we prevent something like the silencing-by-admin attack? (making the most vocal person of a community an admin so that he is able to control the troll attacks, but at the same time they coincidentally being called to suppress their opinion due to the role they occupy). I also see that current admins (other than me) manifest their opinion very openly, should this be banned as well? I also purposedly added a segment that prevents the admin to ban on reasons related to opposing opinion. This would protect the common user to express differing opinions of a particular admin.
Let’s think of an alternative version of that segment of policy.
The idea could be good, but the details are not practical.
After discussing with the creator on the previous thread, he explained that preventing elected people to delegate their admin power was the intention of the proposal.
Admin roles are generally not high position of power but work done by volunteers (either individuals or workers paid by organisations which are volunteer organisations). Asking to make an election anytime a new admin come and limiting their numbers (currently com access are given easily to workers and volunteers on a need-based basis) would result in unnecessary administrative process which would:
- Slow down the DAO communication.
- Consume team time.
- Consume governance attention.
- Prevent newcomers from participating from day 1.
- In fine, reduce the amount of communication work performed for the DAO by making it harder to do so.
A simple sentence allowing delegation would have solved those concerns but the proposer refused to allow delegations.
Moreover I believe that admins should adopt an attitude either neutral or supportive of Proof Of Humanity. If they wish to criticize it, they should be allowed to do so but either do it in technical terms or if they want to express virulent criticism about POH, resign from their admin status or use non admin accounts.
The proposer has already behaved this way (creating FUD using his admin account of telegram). I believe this not an acceptable behavior for an admin and the proposer got comments about it by multiple team members. I believe this proposal is in fine made by the proposer to “secure” his admin status despite his questionable use of it (and as a side effect create unnecessary burden to DAO workers and reduce volunteer participation).
Moreover combining the “election” + “forbidding delegations”, this proposal would have for effect of kicking out members of the current team from communication channels due to HIP-7 which forbids board members from running for elections. This could at best lead to significant disorganization in the DAO communication and at worse to some communication takeover (if there isn’t enough people currently working for the DAO and not being board members to fill the slots).
Due to all those reasons I would advise to vote against this proposal.
Considering it’s only a few hours left now until the proposal closes, I will abstain from voting considering that even though I agree in spirit, the implementation might bring unnecessary conflict and bureaucracy to the DAO right now.
Even though @clesaege warns about the behaviour of the proposer on Telegram channels, the same should be said about the community bullying and attacking him without any necessary reason. Luis in my opinion has been one of the most helpful community members with newcomers on Telegram helping them make sure the don’t lose funds when they do a PoH… needless to say the initiatives to correct the issues with the submission guidelines for jurors.
In that sense, as long as Luis moderates his behaviour and takes into consideration the feedback he received, I hope he can remain as admin regardless of the outcome of this vote.
I second that Luis is a gem for the community, and also this proposal is not ready.
Vote no, with the intention to see this proposal re-written.
Rewriting of the proposal:
Admin roles are not moderator roles, therefore do not require to suppress their opinions in debates, as long as they follow the code of conduct established for that channel. Mere opposition to that admin’s opinion should not be grounds for the admin to ban that person.
Admins acknowledge that access to communication channels or profiled labelled as “admin” give them an additional power which comes with additional responsibilities:
- They should refrain from expressing virulent opinions about Proof Of Humanity or related projects with their admin accounts.
- They are subject to higher standards in term of good conduct (ex: avoiding excessive profanity).
This doesn’t preclude them from formalizing criticism on Proof Of Humanity but it should be done either in a purely technical manner or using a non-admin account.
Elected individuals can allow access to communication channels to individuals helping them managing communication channels. Access to those assistants can be revoked at any time by the elected individual who granted it or by a majority of elected individuals.
I would like the candidates to burn UBI to become eligible.
The proposal can go to next phase.
I found out another issue with this proposal which is the following paragraph:
What does this mean?
It looks like it’s making an election system but it doesn’t specify how. Is is a proportional list system where the winning list cannot get more than 3 (or 1)? And where the winning list cannot get less than 3 (or 1) seat?
If so we’d need to specify the electoral method as here there would probably be some dispute about electoral results.
Moreover giving executive power to the minority conjointly to the majority is a really weird thing to do. Because it means that as long as a list gets 1 seat they gain executive power (having more than 1 admin does not give any extra power as all admins get access). This could have disastrous effects where a side want an action to be done while the other side doesn’t (we could have some sort of publish/unpublish ban/unban wars).
This (assuming it guarantees an opposition seat) would again seems a way for a proposer to guarantee his position as admin (since even if he loses the election he’d get the minority seat, unless there are multiple other lists running and he doesn’t end up in the largest minority which seems unlikely).
That also something I’d change on this proposal.
I would oppose the creation of “lists” to elect admins. I believe it could fracture the community. I would rather vote in individual candidates.
Is it possible to implement some kind of quadratic voting for this?
Agreed on first amendment proposed.
Disagree on the second, for the same reasons as before: if elected officials can choose others, then it would be senseless to make the role elegible. The vote in the DAO represents the will of that person to exert that position. Also, it would lead to proxy candidacies in which a “famous” person is used as a bait and then that person does not do anything in the role. That is completely against the spirit of this HIP.
Example of quadratic voting with PoH just launched:
Preventing people to delegate doesn’t make sense, election still preserve the democratic control even in case of delegation. If a “famous person” presents itself and then delegates some powers, the people he delegated some powers are very likely to be aligned with the elected person and if they were not, this elected person can remove the delegation.
For example, you don’t vote on each municipal employee, you vote for a mayor/municipal council. Asking to vote for each municipal employee wouldn’t make any sense.
Yes! It can be done. Will work on the update to make this happen.
The current version is a result of an ongoing collaboration with several members of the community (@paulaberman, @santisiri and me, with help of others that prefer to remain anonymous) where we did our very best to integrate the critiques made throughout this thread. Thank you all for your collaboration. Once again, we reinforce our commitment to dialogue and collective construction as the best path towards an effective governance for Proof of Humanity.
Here’s a point-by-point explanation of each of the changes we made:
A mechanism for the channels to belong to the “Community managed” status.
A distinction between the Administrator and Moderator functions was outlined, in response to the important point raised by @0x00555dc77a343e205cb1c7755407c93470db3f91_Ethereum mentioning this absence made the proposal confusing. We hope these clarifications served to address your concerns.
In response to the points raised by @0x6687c671980e65ebd722b9146fc61e2471558dd6_Ethereum , about the dangers of a monolithic culture emerging from having lists of candidates, we deleted this component from the proposal. In addition, our reasoning was that the upcoming Code of Conduct will serve to generate a cohesive approach among Administrators, thus making the use of lists dispensable.
Elections: in response to the important points concerning voter fatigue, raised by @Justin and @clesaege, and the possibility of a malicious attack with a harmful candidate, raised by @jputzel, we designed a lightweight and adaptive model that will:
Put maximum scrutiny on Administrators through a 24/7, ongoing evaluation platform which will allow the community to provide immediate feedback on their performance, as well as effectively respond to malicious attacks.
Enable Administrator candidates to organically emerge and be validated by the community on an ongoing basis.
Allow for a frictionless transition between Administrators that either choose to leave, or are deemed to be unqualified by the community (the next one in the rank is simply considered the new official admin).
Allow for the number of Administrators to organically adapt to the size of channels, as well as the availability of candidates.
Not require any overhead or points of centralization in the process: the simple rules we outlined in the Elections section can always be checked on by the community.
Administrators obligations: in response to @Justin.
Anonymity of Administrators: Our present model does not allow for anonymous Administrators. Our understanding is that these are positions of responsibility, and thus should be accountable to the public. That said, we have amended the proposal to include the Administrator obligations in order to ensure a professional conduct from the persons occupying these positions.
To all who have contributed with your comments to this thread on phase 1 and 2 (0x00555dc77a343e205cb1c7755407c93470db3f91_Ethereum, iafhurtado, clesaege Justin santisiri, HBesso31, federicoast waly_hh Nuwanda 0xc88920b0e3daab93e9b539a21764a2f50682c2ec_Ethereum, Nachobr), and also the countless members of all telegram groups. We thank you for your constructive input which served to help us construct what we hope is a well-rounded proposal.
The final, binding poll will start in snapshot on
This ongoing rotation and evaluation of admins sounds spectacularly useful. Is there any proposal for a situation where there are not enough Admins to manage the various channels? Can Admins manage multiple channels? Should they?
I commented on Paula’s tweet announcing the proposal so I’m quite late to the discussion - I wondered whether a human admin might be biased overlooking one type of discrimination but not another, for example, and how to control for that.
I believe point 5 of ludovico’s post quoted below satisfies my concern.