@matoken.eth @codemonkey This will require a coordinated effort, especially from the side of TNL and Stewards, plus any delegates or community members who are up for the challenge. @nick.eth has already posted in several threads about the general roles and responsibilities of a Director, so that part is well-documented and clear in spirit. Nevertheless, what Brantly had been doing precisely at the moment we do not know. I like the idea of Community picking his tasks and taking control while a replacement is sought in parallel; this is the true spirit of a DAO - an individual’s role should not impact the ecosystem to the extent that progress gets derailed. From the looks of it, the public relations aspect of the role hangs in the balance. What else?
@moderators @nick.eth I have made the necessary edits to the draft to reflect recent outcomes from other threads (1 & 2) and I think this text form can move forward whenever the administration is ready.
Thank you for updating this.
I think the proposal needs a clear section that constitutes the notice to the Foundation. It needs to spell out exactly what the DAO/Council is requiring of the foundation. Our solicitors said the following:
On this basis, practically, I think the notice to the Foundation should:
· Be addressed the Foundation Company;
· State that “The ENS Tokenholders have voted in favour of removing Brantly as a director [and appointing… as a director] of The ENS Foundation (such affirmative vote is evidence by the receipt of messages signed with the ENS Tokenholders’ Ethereum public keys – see Appendix A)”; and
· The notice be accompanied by such evidence summarizing the receipt of the requisite number of messages/votes.
It will need to include some mention of the voting process adopted (I suggest Snapshot’s implementation of Ranked Choice), and that the result of the notice depends on the result of the vote. I think the choices need to include each nominee, as well as options for retaining Brantly, and for removing Brantly but not replacing him with anyone.
Perhaps @berrios.eth can help with wording of the notice?
Alright, makes sense. Yes, I have already mentioned in the text explicitly that Snapshot’s Ranked Voting will be used in this case. To draft the Snapshot poll, admin must finalise the nominations in the nominations thread [?]. I believe there are only two nominations so far? I will touch base with @berrios.eth if wants to help out with the draft of notice.
Happy to help, although I will be hiking in the woods today with my wife.
Here is my draft (legal names may be used) and I believe I accounted for all permutations of the vote:
Notice to The ENS Foundation
Pursuant to Article 15 of the Articles of Association, the council, hereby, gives notice to the Foundation Company of the appointment and/or removal of a director of said company, to serve pursuant to the terms of its Articles.
Whereas, the council undertakes this process to vote, by ranked voting via Snapshot, from among nominees of the council, to appoint and/or remove a director of the Foundation Company;
Wherefore, if the results of this election is that brantly.eth receives the highest vote total, then he is appointed and may continue to serve as a director of the Foundation Company, absent his resignation under Article 16. He be given a reasonable time to decide but not more than five days;
Wherefore, if the results of this election is to appoint brantly.eth but he chooses to resign under Article 16 or does not affirmatively accept the appointment within the five-day period, then the candidate with the next highest vote total is appointed to be a director of the Foundation Company; or
Wherefore, if the result of this election is to appoint someone other than brantly.eth, then brantly.eth shall be removed as a director of the Foundation Company, and the person, if any, with the highest number of votes is appointed a director of the Foundation Company.
The results to be formally noted in the council records and the name of such person, if there be one, shall be promptly communicated to the Foundation Company without further process.
This looks perfect, thank you!
I have made some minor edits and this is my final draft. I propose that we move this Proposal to the next step on Wednesday, if there are no comments that warrant changes by then, and have @inplco draft the Snapshot poll, consistent with the above notice. I suggest that the candidates be listed as follows: brantly.eth followed by the declared candidates in random order, followed by “None of the above”. The poll should be placed underneath the notice.
I have updated the draft with the latest version of notice. This can move forward to Snapshot once nominations are formally closed. Probably also handy to put the statements of nominees in one ‘locked’ place/thread and link it to Snapshot vote (only for reference and not for comments); if yes, someone else should do this since I clearly have a conflict of interest.
Yes. Doing this procedural task, as described, does not raise a conflict of interest.
Still, I cannot lock threads; only mods can do that
Can you let us know if you agree on this course of action and address @inplco’s issue?
Yes; on the 28th (‘budget day’) I will advance this proposal to Snapshot. If you include a link in the proposal to the delegate discussion thread, that will be in the Snapshot poll too.
As a side note, much of what is currently under “motivation” - particularly the notice to the foundation - should be under a different header.
Done. I have also added the ENS names and links to the three nominations so far (3? @ENSPunks.eth withdrew and we haven’t seen more of @HealingVisions) in another heading below ‘Next Steps’. I am drafting the Snapshot vote and will post that soon when/as I have it.
Don’t forget to add the “abstain” option. I don’t want to ruin my voting participation metrics by not voting on this one
How about we make a deal that we vote for each other?
We have the choice of “none of the above.” Of course, you can both delegate all your votes to me!
Excellent point. A vote for Brantly, or a vote for None of the Above, is not the same as an abstention.
Here is the issue, @Brantly, @AvsA, and @inplco have votes, their own and others. I don’t think they should abstain, but they should automatically have their votes cast for themselves; because these votes do represent members who support them, unless redelegated, and to do otherwise would have the effect of disenfranchising members who have delegated their votes to them. If AvsA and inplico abstain but brantly does not, then it would give brantly an unfair advantage, same if AvsA and inplico vote but brantly does not. There is nothing in the rules that anyone must abstain.
What I would suggest is a push to inform everyone of the opportunity to redelegate their votes. But add the following into EP6: Each candidate need not vote, but will have their votes cast for themselves, unless they affirmatively choose to cast their votes for another candidate.
@nick.eth please weigh in on this course of action and that it is doable.
Makes sense; I have added it to the draft. Just to make things clearer however, I am declaring that I will wholeheartedly vote for myself with my ant sized share of votes. Having said that, I cannot create a Snapshot vote since I don’t have the necessary 10,000 $ENS delegated to me. I did until a few days ago but then ENS opened the free re-delegation window and my biggest delegate self-delegated. So we need someone with 10,000 $ENS to come forward and put up the Snapshot vote. I honestly don’t want to do it either since it is a clear shot to my foot being a nominee and the vote author