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.