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.
i appreciate clarity and certainly wish to avoid talking past each other.
there is no difference to the point i was making whether âjobâ or âyour preferred termâ or âxâ. if there is, you didnt make it, or i dont get it. so it just seems like youre missing forest for trees with me.
the point was that unless hes removed, dao has nothing to elect for. or in anycase it doesnt make even logical sense to hold an election for a role that is not available.
argument against this idea seems to be legal said dao can do this.
ok fine. but so what? many ridiculous things are legally allowed. for that matter, many wonderful things are legally prohibited. ens dao shouldnt imo concern itself first with legality.
beyond this, ive argued that voting to remove or not remove and voting on what to do in the event of remove is different from voting in the way set out in this proposal.
argument against this is pretty solid but ive countered that reformulation fails to symbolize the actual bias introduced by the voting setup in this proposal. waiting to hear reply.
and ive voiced that i would prefer 2 seperate votes, if there must be a vote at all, as a result of these considerations.
itâs been suggested that i should offer up a proposal with my preferred method. but i dont wish to put forward a proposal to remove brantly since i dont think he should be removed.
These questions are cleared by the Notice to the Foundation. Like it has been repeated so many times, this vote is to possibly replace Brantly Millegan and there is a clear way for him to continue his position through the provided voting system. There is no alleged bias in the Notice. However, there is a clear bias in your understanding of it, or a complete lack of understanding altogether.
This argument deserves no response. It is naive at best and dangerous unto end at worst. DAOs donât and cannot and should not circumvent law. I am lost for words.
See at the top and read the responses to your questions above.
In that case, sit by and watch a democratic process unfold. Things donât just (not) happen because you want them to (not) happen â or otherwise. You can write a proposal by the way for another vote to simply choose whether Brantly should be removed or not. There is no prohibition; please go ahead. If you cannot be bothered into writing one, then you are here to do no more than what we know as âshitpostingâ.
I apologise for my strong language but your comments donât deserve better response simply because they possess no merit.
Maybe argue in private messages please? Iâm all for healthy debate until it stops being constructive.
1 Like
This is not an argument yet. I am calling a spade a spade and answering questions that cottons.eth keeps asking again and again while they have been answered by berrios.eth a number of times. cottons.eth now doesnât think that DAOs should concern themselves with legality. We shall perhaps also not concern ourselves with decorum. I am testing what other ethical, legal, moral lines we are ready to jump
I understand your frustration, this is a uncomfortable situation for everyone that cares about this project. I just want us to focus on coming to agreements rather than provoking one another.
1 Like
you say there is no bias in this set up. ive put forth an argument to skittles showing the contrary. your strongly worded dismisal of that argument falls flat.
failing to understand is a method of argument popularized by g.e. moore. i take myself to be engaging along these lines. this is just common sense. if there is not currently an available position to hold an election for, holding an election for the non-existent position is nonsense.
im not suggesting dao seek to break laws, just that laws arent guiding principles. if something is right but illegal, right should win. likewise if something is wrong but legal, it is still wrong. so the argument against me that legal says is ok holds no sway.
my purpose here is to encourage others not to push this to vote, and to explain why i think this is correct. i believe nothing prevents me from continuing to discuss this as long as possible. i dont appreciate being bullied, or told that my opinions have no merit.
my points are logical, procedural and common sense, not personal.
@nick.eth @moderators Per the expected moving of this proposal from Draft to Active on February 28 2022 âBudget Dayâ as Nick proposed, I believe that this text is in a full mature state. @berrios.eth has been very kind to help me through some a lot of the details along with Nick and other members of the DAO. Note that there are some last minute objections by @cottons.eth and @Coltron.eth to the single vote system adopted in this proposal. These objections raised however have been cleared by the legal counsel of ENS Foundation. Objectioners are free to bring forward other proposals through the usual process and show quorum to effectively stop this proposal from moving forward. As things stand concerning this proposal alone and within the context that it bounds, I invite the moderators to bring it to vote.
Raw .md metadata of this proposal is available here on IPFS for moderators to copy-paste to Snapshot: QmPpxww8qhifCz1jtWeZYz3TfEmopF8zpPQccYKvo71TAL
I highly prefer two separate, distinct votes regarding this entire situation:
Vote #1 to decide if Brantly is removed
Vote #2 to decide who shall be appointed if Brantly is removed
In my mind, thereâs no need to do both at once - clearly, it introduces confusion to many (including myself).
There should obviously be some sort of swift timeline for doing vote #2 if vote #1 does successfully pass, but itâs not like Brantly is even doing anything right now so a formal removal wouldnât actually change anything to introduce urgency.
3 Likes
Every successive vote to remove a Director or to remove any appointed position from now onward will have to be done in two votes, as a precedant. Are you sure you want to set that precedant? While I do understand that it may be confusing at first, but do the notices fail to clear the confusion? Is it not clear what the two-in-one vote tries to achieve â to avoid having to hold two votes for every re-appointment in the future? While Brantly.eth is not doing anything, would you rather leave his responsibilities unfulfilled or get on with it and get ENS rolling? What is the gain in squandering? I donât see anyone taking up the remaining of his roles. Lastly, write a proposal. I am not making any changes to this proposal as it has been agreed after long debate and legal counsel as to how this particular proposal will proceed. Of course, if the moderators see fit, they may shelve this proposal and not allow it to pass from Draft to Active. In that case, someone should be able to write a two-vote proposal and do it the other way. We are a DAO. Write proposals. Take responsibility.
Thereâs nothing saying that this specific vote will decide all vote mechanisms in the future.
Thereâs no issue having two votes for this situation, and then adjusting in the future to a two-in-one vote mechanism if need be for future instances of foundation removals/appointments (hopefully of which wonât occur too often).
1 Like
This was already discussed. Check the thread above and read all the discussion pertaining to this specific point you raised â legal counsel suggested to do it the currently formulated way for this appointment (and by association all re-appointments) with one notice since splitting it in two is trivial. This is precisely why Nick went to the ENS lawyers. You are about a week late on this, if not more. Procedural processes are streamlined to avoid any irregularities, not on the hope that âthis wonât happen againâ. Hope doesnât run organisations, decentralised or otherwise.
FYI: I wanted two votes at the start too, but I decided not to pander to my low intelligence and adopt the concise and smarter way that was suggested.
Rather unnecessary to say this. I support the two separate votes.
1 Like
Nothing wrong in admitting when you are wrong. It is up there for everyone to see â I was wrong. I find the concise one-vote system better despite being initially against it. In any case, I have made my stand clear. This proposal is locked as it is and the moderators can shelve it if there is quorum against it. I shall abide by the DAO rules 
Well youâre certainly a delight to converse with.
Iâve read this entire thread and I see many references to legal council but I donât see anything that actually is a quote from the actual legal council, stating that they âsuggestâ this be done in one vote.
Even if that quote were to be produced, I still think that this entire situation should unfold in a manner that is the least confusing for the most people.
Regardless, Iâll vote in whatever proposal takes place, whether itâs a one-vote or a two-vote proposal.
1 Like
Referring to your condescension, not your change of opinion.
1 Like
I am not a delight because people are commenting without reading (and some openly say it is inconvenient for them to read at all). I am not sure if you understand my frustration; there was a time for this discussion on this subject and it has passed. Please refer to Nickâs comments about the legal counsel. It is either in this thread or in the other thread with âRoles and Responsibilities of a Directorâ. Just like people cannot be arsed into reading before commenting (as you yourself just admitted to doing), I cannot be arsed into being a delight or linking relevant threads as I usually do. People put too much time and work in the nitty gritty details of this concise proposal for inactive members (not you) to come rattle the dusty curtains and derail the governance process. So yes, I am sorry for not being delightful.
By the way, letâs have new EP6 proposal about whether to have one vote or two votes.
My three concerns are:
- Bias. This proposal structure risks being a double-barreled vote.
- Sunk Cost. Reasoning to move forward despite legitimate objections is based upon sunk cost fallacy.
- Conflict of Interest. I have some minor concerns (based on principles, not personals) that the proposalâs master initiated it days after the incident and has placed themselves on the ballot.
Possible solutions:
- Delay. Take time to facilitate a broader discussion on proposal structure, director qualifications, and start from scratch with input from @Meta-Gov_Stewards. Solves 1,2 & 3 concerns.
- Reformat. Merely extract the components regarding the selection of a new successor into a separate, concurrent proposal [EP6.5]. This addresses most of the recent objections and should not significantly affect the timeline or diminish the work performed by @inplco @berrios.eth . Solves 1 & 2 of my concerns.
Iâm in favor of solution 2. Weâre short on time if the target is still (02/28), but Iâd be happy to work with @berrios.eth to extract the elements related to the election of a new director, since this is where most of the contention resides.
In the mean time, letâs not claim that dissent is shit-posting or trolling, or make this personal⌠Assuming good faith, we are all trying to do what is best for the ENS DAO and our community given the circumstances.
To help clarify our direction moving forward on EP6 and reduce debate, Iâve drafted a poll. This is not actionable, but at the very least it documents objection to EP6 as the quality of discussion is declining.
Should we split EP6?
Example:
[EP 6] Removal of brantly.eth as director of the ENS Foundation.
[EP 6.5] Election for replacement of brantly.eth as director of ENS Foundation.
Should [EP6] be split into two separate proposals as discussed above?
- Yes.
- No.
0 voters
1 Like