This looks good to me.
1 Like
Could this be highlighted so we can have a smidgen of accountability in the draft? I would love to see the word ‘accountability’ mentioned at least once.
1 Like
I have made edits to the draft proposal in response to feedback received on the proposal.
To view the edits, click on the orange pencil with a ‘2’ next to it at the start of the thread.
2 Likes
Hey @alisha.eth thanks for the write-up. It sounds good to me. Also I like the feedback to include “accountability” as a main descriptor of the role.
2 Likes
I have voted ‘YES’ on Snapshot, but I am personally disappointed to see that we couldn’t get the word ‘accountability’ in there at least once. After so much effort to push for accountability in the draft, it is disheartening to see those comments being ignored while the proposal has been rushed through to Snapshot. @alisha.eth Can I please ask if there was a specific reason to not include ‘accountability’ in the draft?
The changes in this proposal focus on specifying clear responsibilities for stewards and lead stewards. By clearly specifying responsibilities, it is easier to hold stewards accountable. Including the word “accountability” does not mean that there is accountability. The accountability comes from the ability of delegates and stewards to use these rules to remove a steward (or secretary) who does not fulfil their responsibilities.
4 Likes
Can I assume that it was your unilateral decision to not include ‘accountability’ explicitly? On the record, if I may. It is very easy to accomodate feedback from others; for example, 3.4 could read with addition of few words,
‘Stewards are responsible and accountable unto removal for overseeing the operation of working groups in accordance with these rules and the ENS DAO constitution.’,
or something similar. Nothing too fancy.
My thought process is set out in a response above, copied below for ease of reference.
I’ll take that as a ‘Yes’, thank you. Please consider making room for comments and feedback from others in the future, even when they go against your personal thought-process. It is part and parcel of co-working in a DAO.
@alisha.eth did make room for feedback and explained her reason for not including the word ‘accountability’ specifically. Do you want her to post it again so you understand?
Proposals are co-written, even if they are manually written by a single entity. The drafter must include all inputs from the contributors when such input has been explicitly requested by several members. Proposals are collaborative work. I have drafted many myself and I consider it my duty to include whatever has been substantially requested.
Incorrect. Proposals can be written and submitted by anyone. They do not have to be co-written.
Again, incorrect. Authors of proposals do not need to include feedback. They may seek feedback, but the author of a proposal ultimately decides what is included in a proposal and what is put to a vote.
You have? I would love the see the “many” proposals you have submitted to the DAO.
Not going to engage in a war of words on this thread. Not the place for it. Thank you for your input.
You’re welcome.
It sounds to me like she heard your feedback and incorporated it in the way she thought was best for the proposal. No proposal writer is under any obligation to include specific language from someone simply because they suggested it.
If you feel strongly about that word being critical to the proposal, you could always make an edited proposal of your own.
I don’t remember seeing that in the Constitution or any governance rules. It sounds like a personal perspective, not a rule. No one is entitled to have edits applied to someone else’s proposal. If you think your suggestion is critical, your always welcome to vote it down and encourage others to do the same.
At the end of the day, the votes are what determines what is right and wrong.
3 Likes
If everyone decided to put forward counter proposals instead of coordinating on drafts at hand, we’ll be here all our lives going through proposals. I’ll leave it at that; this proposal is through anyway.
I don’t understand your obsession with paying lip service to accountability by including the word, rather than actually being accountable. As Alisha points out, the rules provide accountability, not saying the word. If you believe there’s a lack of actual accountability, that’s one thing, but this seems like pointless bikeshedding.
Having first-hand worked on and having experienced the drafting of at least two IPCC reports, the lesson was that presence of a keyword in one iteration leads to expansion on that word in the next. If you think the new proposal adds to accountabiity, then I rest my case, because it doesn’t. Reducing the number of stewards does not lead to accountability; putting accountability conditions explicitly in the rules leads to accountability. To repeat myself, the new set of rules do not add any more accountability to the equation than the previous set in my view; adding another way of removing the stewards is not a meaningful accountability measure since such a vote will likely never be taken by a group of ‘yes men’. I apologise for the lip service but I will stop now. I have no intentions to further prolong everyone’s suffering in this discussion.