Special binding Mission Board Ratification: HIP 27

Dear Mission Board members: @clesaege @federicoast @Herb @santisiri @Justin

In order to move forward HIP-27 and to have a guarantee of its outcome in the Governor, some members of the PoH Governance group (including the authors of the HIP-27, @juanu and @mizu ) are requesting an official ratification signed by you to make it clear that we are institutionally in the same page.

The mechanism that we propose is to make a Snapshot poll that would require the vote of all board members. Since we cannot filter out any other person voting, only the designated PoH board members addresses will be taken into account for this poll. It was the fastest and most transparent method that we thought of, until a better signing mechanism allows you to do it in an Board Members only environment.

Snapshot begins

We, the Proof of Humanity Mission Board members, in compliance with the HIP-7 role of

  • Adjudicate if the proper procedure is followed on passing proposals.

And with the powers granted by HIP-21, that amends HIP-7:

  • The board has, however, broad power to interpret the rules of the DAO, including filling in details not specified in a proposal.
  • Dispute resolution:
* A board member can judge whether a proposal or action follows the rules of the DAO. When acting in this way, the board member must clearly state it (instead of just stating an opinion as a normal PoH member).
* Any member can ask another board member to weigh in on a judgment.
* If the board members disagree on the judgment, they will need a majority vote among the board members to make a final decision.
* A tie-breaking vote will be held by the board member whose seat will be up for election at the latest date. (Tie-breaker is added for the case when a seat is unoccupied or a member abstains from voting)

Hereby declare:

  • That although HIP-5 was not enforced in the Governor, we consider the highest standard of proposal process, and any HIP following HIP-5 is considered valid,
  • That nothing in the HIP-5 prevents re-submission of any HIP, and resuming is possible at any stage without the need of starting from Phase-1,
  • That the latest Phase-2 voting of HIP-27 was valid, since a Phase-1 was deemed complete at the time of the second voting and the new Phase-2 discussion in the forum had enough exposure,
  • That we ratify the procedure of HIP-27 voting was made in compliance with the convened HIP-5 normative, and
  • That HIP-27 is ready to be voted in Phase-3 in SnapShot and its results once finished are valid and binding.

A majority vote (as per HIP-21) is required for this ratification to pass.

Any vote in this snapshot that is not from the following Mission Board Members will not be counted in the final results of this voting.

  • Mission Board Member Santi Siri 0x2a52309edf998799c4a8b89324ccad91848c8676
  • Mission Board Member Herb Stephens 0x57f908c42f5a0e5dbbd3c35a137cc242cf89add6
  • Mission Board Member Clement Lesaege 0xfd1af514b8b2bf00d1999497668bff26ccdf4c8a
  • Mission Board Member Federico Ast 0xf12c67e80e309eac0c4dc18fb26e68f9672297e9
  • Mission Board Member Justin Kalland 0xf49a19f72d0e106df462cfd6b5bebe42b6001616

Snapshot end

Voting options will be

  • I ratify this declaration
  • I do not ratify this declaration

I’d support.


I didn’t follow the debate, does anyone want to argue in favor of the other side or is everything consensual?

1 Like

People at the Telegram governance group were most in line with this accross the board. Maybe @mizu can chime in on this.

Since there is a Snapshot lockdown, it’s up to board members now to post it there and sign it at your discretion.

We are just looking for a signed ratification of the board members, in case there is a challenge on the governor update when HIP-27 passes phase 3.

We have not seen any oposition for this, but since HIP-5 doesn’t specify this mechanism, we are just tying lose ends.

But what would be this challenge? Could anyone argue on why it could be challenged?

Because HIP-5 does not specify whether a republication of a Phase is valid or not (like HIP27 which has 2 Phase2. The first one did not pass, but the second one did)

1 Like

For context here is one of the instances that this was debated Telegram: Contact @PoHGov

My understanding is that nothing prevents retrying a phase (as someone could just rename the exact same proposal with a different number).
Actually I’m just gonna do that with HIP-23.

This is great! Now, we need to solidify this understanding in a signed document. Hence the need for this ratification.

1 Like

Hey Clement,

I don’t think anybody actually believes that this is against the procedure of HIP 5, but @mizu brought up that there’s a possibility a challenger could challenge it on the Kleros governor.

Since the deposit amount is pretty steep, we would appreciate to have more “legal clarity” and avoid any chance of an inconvenience.

That’s why we would appreciate if the board could upload this “motion” on snapshot and vote on it.

1 Like

Agreed @clesaege this is more of a safe net for us who want to keep working on proposals
Would you be willing to sign it?


Im okay with bringing legal clarity on this and sign as board member.


I also agree that this is my interpretation.

Sounds good to me as well.


Could you clarify ? Not sure if you are saying you would sign it or not.

@clesaege @federicoast @santisiri Would it be ok if we add this statement to the Phase 3 of HIP-27 and consider your Approved vote as agreeing to the statement?


I am also ok with this and intend on signing.


@justin then this question goes for you too

I apologize, I thought I replied. Yes I am personally ok with adding this statement to Phase 3 and I agree with the statement.

1 Like