I don’t understand what you mean. Anyone can put transactions voted by the DAO for execution, so there is no high-trust job.
There are higher-level decisions - should we use the tool at all?, how should it be set up?, how is this tool integrated in PoH governance?
But maybe we are talking past each other.
I think you are making the point that the board does not need the power to allocate funds directly for anything, correct? While I am arguing why we need the board at all.
Well the DAO can perfectly vote to use other tools. No need of a board for that.
Yeah that’s the point.
I think it is an interesting idea, but I would rather have that as a separate proposal because the supporters/detractors of this idea will likely break down differently than a tweak of powers+elections for all board seats.
1 Like
I would think this is implicit in our governance already that other proposals can add clauses, but …as they say in Python, “explicit is better than implicit”. I think it is best if this proposal is not too detailed, leaving the powers to be fleshed out later.
1 Like
Hey @santisiri, why did you vote against the revised mission board?
I was under the impression you were on board (pun intended).
I’m against this kind of improvisation of going back and forward with decisions already made. It’s not clear to me @Mads why you made these polls at all tbh.
My actions were clear to myself, but I can see now how they could be quite confusing to everyone else.
The last poll was made because some people, @santisiri @paulaberman among others, raised questions on whether the board was instituted with enough democratic power behind it. Since it was instituted according to the rules, the decision was already made formally, but I could make a poll asking for confirmation of the decision.
This new proposal is a revision - going forward, not back - the proposal was started because a member of the board asked me directly to evolve the board. It was made as a replacement for HIP-7 because the revisions became too big to write as an addendum.
I would also ask what you @santisiri specifically object to, the clarifications or the more putting all seats up for elections soon? With that in mind I can drop the offending part.
1 Like
I simply object to the revisionism of a decision already taken @Mads, which with the ongoing polls imho it brings more confusion to the issue.
That said, I do not object adding a 5th member to the mission board and I think we should simply vote for that.
Ok, I can cut it down so it reverses nothing in HIP-7.
What is left is, “5th board member”, “Power Scope” and “Dispute Resolution”. It does not fundamentally change anything in HIP-7 so it can be written as an addendum rather than a complete haul-over. This also narrowly addresses the concerns that started the thread.
I will pull the poll and make these changes.
1 Like
Ok, I made the changes. Since this 5th member will be the first “non-interim” member, I felt a few additional “Election” rules were needed. I also removed the “cannot directly allocate funds”-bullet in “Power Scope” since this would contradict HIP-7.
What do you guys think?
1 Like
The signalling phase is too long and doesn’t follow HIP-7.
Ok, the problems should be fixed now.
Put the HIP into Phase-3, please tell me if there are any final modifications.
1 Like
The proposal is passed 20-0. I will start the process for the election of the 5th board member.
4 Likes