Source: Birds of a Feather
Let me rephrase to highlight the problem I’m seeing: it’s not the role of ANT holders to research anything, it’s their roles to decide.
With that in mind:
Person X likes the project a lot, wants to become ANT holder and vote. Person X has a full-time job, a familly, etc but is willing to dedicate a reasonable amount of time to vote in a way that would produce positive outcomes to the project.
Now, today Person X has to vote. What process Person X is supposed to follow to vote on AGP 130, 139 & 143. The others are easier because they seem to basically be critical AGPs necessary to move the project in the direction that was planned a long time ago.
This goes beyond @lkngtn comment and that’s why I have created a new thread. ANT holders are left alone to make decisions, I don’t think this is good at all.
Executive summaries could work but indeed if nobody expresses anything, there won’t be much to summarize. We eventually want to have delegated voting right? Likewise if there’s nobody expressing their views on each vote, that’s going to be challenging to find to whom ANT holders should delegate their votes.
Now I wonder. Some major projects are using Aragon: Decentraland, Melon, Coinbase, and quite a few others. Don’t they want to make sure the project is steered in the best possible direction as it is a pillar to the governance of their project? If so, they ought to vote (hope they do) and also to express themselves so people stand behind their reasoning and vote similarly, which would help steer the project in alignment to their needs.
- You should vote. I think you should do that with maybe 1% of your stake or alternatively as much as the largest non-founder voter used on the last vote. That would nicely put more weight to your vote as the project grows. Much better than suddently deciding out of the blue that it’s time for you to vote, which would probably create a big fuss.
- You should express your views on each of the AGPs proposed so ANT holders can use your opinion in their voting.
- When there is a conflict of interest or for any other reason, you can feel free to skip a vote and express opinion, although you should feel free to express yourself and vote if you feel strongly about something.
- In doubt of what to do, create an AGP to suggest what you wish and ask the ANT holders.
What shape should this take, I have some ideas but I don’t really know. What I know is there’s a clear problem where in order to vote properly, an ANT holder needs to do a lot of research. Since in some (many) cases the research would be either too long or impossible, you get either a no-vote or more dangerous, a vote that has little confidence behind it.