[EP6] [Cancelled] See EP 6.1 and 6.2

the choices make it as though brantly is just one of several candidates in an open election. but he has yet to be removed. so it makes little sense for him to run for election of a position he holds.

One choice is he need not be removed but can continue to serve. It would be worse for him if he was subjected to a removal vote without putting in the alternative for members to weigh. Thus, if you want to remove brantly, then these are your choices, including none of the above. The vote structure is designed to be fair to all permutations, without favoring a certain outcome.


it’s as though dao would be saying, we will let you keep your job provided you can beat this list of candidates for your job. this would presume a power of authority the dao does not posses. surely we cannot offer, to candidates, a job that is not yet available. whether it is worse or not for him seems by the way to the dao function here. if people want him removed, let’s hear a vote on that without commotion.

1 Like

That argument was fully addressed and was my initial position, but legal advice disagreed with both of us and opined that it could be done with one vote rather than two.

please link this. i dont see.

The first sentence was resolved that ENS Tokenholders, DAO, and Council are all one in the same. This began the discussion, which concluded that we could combine the votes.

1 Like

interesting so we began confused and ended up logically inconsistent.

I wasn’t confused, I was mistaken about the Delegate process, which, when corrected, affected my conclusion.

As for being logically inconsistent, your presumption is flawed, as it was a legal opinion that council’s appointment and removal powers could both be exercised, simultaneously, in one vote without violating the Articles or Cayman Islands law. In EP6, all permutations are offered, including the option of just removal, if “none of the above” garners the most votes. Moreover, it is not his “job” because a director is appointed and serves at the pleasure of council.

1 Like

forum discussion is tiresome. great point about “job” - i love semantics.
im not moved that it’s legal in the cayman islands. and i dont much care that articles arent violated because perhaps they didnt foresee the dao proposing such a farce.

“are we removing or not?” is one question.
“if we do remove, who will replace?” another.
you could answer these simumtaneously i suppose, but not singularly. what dao is trying to do is something like wrap them into each other. but there’s an error in this.

x or not x or not x or not x or not x
is not the same as
x or not x & if not x, not x or not x or not x

again, i would like to see a simple up down on remove pending replacement.

I personally apologise that you are inconvenienced into reading. Whether you are moved or not, or care or not, unfortunately legal counsel is objectively sound and obviously more informed than someone who finds it tiresome to read.

Your logic statements are ambiguous and false. The logics are:

x or not x + a or b or c versus x or not x & if not x, then a or b or c

These two are the same since all ‘x’ and ‘not x’ are non-interactive by default, and a ∪ b ∪ c ⊆ not x. Draw a commutation chart or a set representation, and you’ll see why.

1 Like

Thank you for expressing your opinion on this proposal.

Wrapping this up in one vote is the cleanest option, but just because it can be done, should we?

We should make an effort to minimize the exposure of having an empty seat in the event that Brantly is removed, but there is no reason to rush, or sacrifice due process, by concatenating what could be two separate voting processes.

Despite what the language affords us, a possible solution would be to draft two seperate proposals: [EP 6] and [EP 6.5]. The [EP 6.5] would contain replacement options for directorship and be written so that it would only take effect if [EP 6] is passed in favor of removing Brantly.

It’s reasonable, and potentially more transparent, to structure the process this way. I see @cottons.eth point that by providing replacements for Brantly if, and before, he is removed may bias voters toward removing him.

Due to the gravity of this proposal — and the precedence it sets — there should be no ambiguity on what is being voted on.

@berrios.eth I highly respect your experience and skill. Does this two-vote solution have merits considering the objections raised?


I love a good debate but this proposal has been through the works for about three weeks including dedicated legal counsel (that will possibly be accounted toward ENS Foundation’s billable hours) and a day before it goes to active status, we want to restructure it entirely? Is there a statute of limitations to this kind of stuff? I invite anyone to draft new proposals as they wish. I, for one, am out of this drafting process. My contribution ends here.

By the way, having more votes trivialises the voting process. There will always be a group of people who will want to dissect the objective into subparts, and then more subparts, and then more subparts, until you are voting on whether to hold the next vote. The intention should be toward minimising the votes, not encouraging fragmentation ad infinitum.

The [EP6] is to set Director: Eligibility, Terms and Compensation.

before those are clear, any voting to replace director now would be ambiguous and confusing. and we might endup coming back to replacing director again and again and again we may have great director but he is undischarged bankrupt and can’t legally be in capacity of director.


I can get behind this one, and I have tried to in the past but it hasn’t been addressed. Eligibility is easy to define and can be legally delegated to the nominees through a Disclaimer and set of T&C ; Terms of Directors are a contentious issue; Compensation is also very contentious. I have assumed that ENS wants to take ad hoc approach to this, or at least that’s what it looks like so far. Now, if all of a sudden there is enough inertia behind fragmentation, then we may as well address it. But it has to come from legitimate reasons, not because of inconvenienced contributors who want the easy way out.

It was my initial position, but this was before legal counsel opined that it could be done. This was largely supported by the fact that council (ENS Tokenholders/DAO) has the power to decide on interpretation of the Articles, as long as it is not repugnant to its powers (i.e., there being no prohibition in law or governing documents). Since the single-vote option, which now also has merit, was put forth and no objection being raised by the community, we proceeded on the one-vote solution, which I drafted to be neutral and not to point to a certain outcome. There is no ambiguity of what is being put forth to the community.

While a two-vote solution could be done, it would require two separate votes, as I discussed towards the beginning of this thread.

To address @cottons.eth points, nothing is “semantics”, the position is an appointment, there is neither a property interest nor a “due process” protocol for a director. The council may remove a director for any reason or no reason, as long as there is no prohibition in law and governing documents.

1 Like

If you would like to take on such a project, you can put forth such a proposal. As I stated in a couple of threads, terms should be discussed (but they are not in place right now) and qualifications are subject to Cayman Islands law. I believe it was discuss in one of the threads that anyone thinking of the position should not have a disqualifying fact.

Nevertheless, this post should be in another more appropriate post, one in which you started. In addition, you should work within the appropriate Working Group, Meta-Governance.

1 Like

is not that i dont like to read, is that im annoyned by pendanticism.

but i appreciate your reformulatuon however i think yours is not accurately representing whats going on.

all choices other than brantly are not brantly. this creates a bias that otherwise does not exist if there are 2 seperate proposals.

is like if u offer a kid a green skittle or no skittle. this is different than offering them a green skittle, no skittle, a red skittle, or a yellow skittle, or a purple.

I encourage and invite you to draft the proposals as you deem fair and unbiased, and put them forward in a manner that the community can compare and decide. You are more than welcome.

Unfortunately, we are operating in a legal world where language matters and formality must be followed. For example, definitions are what they are, as defined, and when left undefined, the default is plain meaning consistent with grammatical structure (e.g., ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, etc.).

I do not advocate for a position or candidate, but implementing the consensus, as long as there is a basis in law and governing documents.