I don’t mean to offend you because I respect what you’ve done for AN DAO.
That said, the proposer is not using any “tactic” to change the proposal as you claim. If you read all the comments right here you’ll notice the idea of terminating the charter was brought up in the course of the debate. The proposer is simply following community suggestions by restructuring the proposal accordingly.
No offence taken. I’m simply sharing my opinion and you’re welcome to as well. As you can read I asked questions more than once as to “why to terminate”
Which imo have never been adequately addressed… which is exactly why I question - When and who decided that the direction of the proposal and ensuing vote would be changed?.." because I do not see (transparency) that conversation here in the forum. If there are decisions here that I’ve missed (easy enough to do) please quote/share them to correct me
I consider this a tactic because this is not the first time that changing a proposal - and subsequently the issues being voted on - has been recently observed. Here’s one example
Are you also aware of the impact that this change had?
I’m relatively new here and didn’t take part in the discussion of that topic so can’t say anything about it
If I knew you were going to edit your message this way I wouldn’t have replied. You clearly don’t welcome criticism.
@Vallery unfortunately I’m not the only person that asked questions that remained unanswered before it was decided (when and by who?) to pivot this proposal and vote to terminate the charter
This forum is rife with judgement and so I routinely edit responses as I gather references to substantiate my communication and temper my perspective. I do my best to be constructive and clarify where objective feedback switches to subjective, personal opinion.
I welcome your perspective @Vallery and tbh, rather than seeing your responses as a criticism I consider it an opportunity to build shared understanding, share differences of perspectives and communicate
Originally this proposal was about
And I questioned the method that could logically pivot the original proposal to one to terminate the Charter.
So I’ll ask again, can anyone provide information as to when and who decided (here in forum? behind closed doors?) that the direction of the proposal and ensuing vote would be changed to Terminate the Charter? @AClay?
Just to clarify I shared again that people were blindsided in the past by significant pivots on proposals because when changes were made to the Transfer of Funds proposal it was communicated to me that “…The disappearance of the $20M allocation from the first proposal to the final one was probably the worst communicated decision in history…”
This is the knowledge I have to build upon and why I suggest we can do a much better job of
Apologies, I thought the clarification on the vote made it easier and simpler for the decision to be made. This was not closed door, I read the comments from @evanaronson and discussed them, agreed with his assessment that clarity was needed. This was 20 days ago now.
I agree that it may feel like the cart before the horse, however the way I tried to word it was that it will only take place when a new charter is voted in. Until that point the current charter is still deployed. If this vote passes then it will allow us to provide clear, non confusing assessment of a new document, the alternative is comparing two which are incompatible with each other which will be much slower.
On the point of the original three questions posted, With the change to the vote hopefully it is providing more certainty. The three answers to the vote were confusing, dissolve sounded like everything related to the DAO, Forking was a confusing concept with poor clarity from different members on what it meant compared to dissolving, and edit the charter would come as a result of voting no to termination. Also as we have a charter which some are classing as a “partnership” we could not have two at the same time.
We now have a very focused clear question on the charter alone, terminate, and move to a new one when it is voted in. Or stay with the status quo. This is very clear, as until that point the current Charter remains in force, and then there is simply a swap over of the governance process.
I want to be clear here the current charter will only be terminated when a new one is voted in. There is no date here set on purpose, as we don’t know for certain what will happen with a new charter, does a vote fail for example, this would mean that the current charter can continue.
Using past reference of points, these I am sure could have been made clearer, however I left the original post on purpose in the proposal so people can clearly see what has been changed. I do agree I could have clarified the change better, hopefully the above justification is clear.
I have to agree upon re-reading the entire thread that the communication and course of the proposal adjustments was clear and driven by community suggestions. The proposal structure is clear. I am also relatively new to the forum, but a long-time ANT holder, and sorry you feel attacked.
Thanks for taking the time to read, assess and share your perspective. I agree the proposal format is currently very clear, because it was significantly altered on Sept 8. This is why I feel it is a misleading tactic (even when unintended) - to start out with legally complex and on very different and contentious topics and then narrow and clarify based on one colleague’s suggested direction and ensuing comments while offering no response to the community members that sort to discuss the change of direction.
I also recognise a need for a new charter but I disagree (hence my posts) that there is sufficient transparency or open discussion of the matter at hand, given its importance.
My questions following the edits went without response for more than two weeks. Does that strike you as open, participatory decentralised governance? To me it indicated that the new agenda was not welcoming or encouraging discussion.
My concern (imo) with this centralised governance agenda is that it is likely already decided (votes accounted for). Discussion is a formality to establish some legitimacy and a pretence only for decentralised governance. I was never under the illusion that what I say can impact the result of the vote here but in aid of
I will try to model that set of recommendations.
Please take this as a straight/practical response and professional, and I hope it isn’t rude. Sorry for my english.
The main form of legitimacy is on-chain execution, that is why we are in web3.0. Less so to mince words but because code is law as core member @evanaronson alludes very often.
Someone not responding to you is not illegitimate and although it may seem unfair, no1 is entitled to a response. The only entitlement anyone has is weighted voting ANT and the execution. I think it is important, since we are using blockchain technology to change the world, to remember that. Otherwise, why are we in Aragon?
If people are not responding to you it may be that what you said wasn’t important or they do not respect your post, or you. I’m sorry to say. The same goes for me! As I said above, we can write all these rules all we want, but ANT weighted voting is all that matters in the end. So if people aren’t responding it’s not nice, but it’s fine, they don’t have to and it’s their choice!
Sorry for tough words but this is the fact. Have a nice day!
You misunderstand/ misinterpret my responses - Illegitimate, unfair - were never points I raised. My points are that
