I can do either, but I would at least want @nick.eth to weigh in.
I have posted the raw metadata file on IPFS as you can see. Please go ahead and extract the relevant parts and write more proposals.
(I am also withdrawing my nomination since I have after all shot myself in the foot)
The way I see it, the pros outweigh the cons for splitting the proposal into two actions. It is less confusing, and in my opinion the only reason to combine them would be brevity, which I don’t believe needs to be a concern. The 28th is not a hard deadline, and Brantly isn’t even active anyway. I don’t feel we have anything to lose by making two succinct votes.
Not to get too complicated, but perhaps the two proposals can be put to vote on Snapshot, and if both pass, combine them into a single on-chain executable vote to save gas and for simplicity. Edit - nevermind there is no executable vote on chain…
I did however read the posts nick.eth made and I believe @inplco is referring to in which the legal guidelines were discussed for this. It is above my head but if I understood it correctly, he just clarified that a replacement needs to be selected before removing Brantly as Director, and that the DAO can indeed vote to remove him from the position. I may be totally not understanding that correctly though.
tdlr - I agree with @Coltron.eth’s concerns and believe it should be split for the off chain vote, and then can be potentially be combined into one for the executable decision if both off-chain votes are passed.
This is a social proposal. There is no on-chain vote. There is no executable.
Ah, you’re right. For some reason I was thinking we would have to vote on-chain for this type of thing, but it’s right there in the title [well, it was]. I think it should be split then.
@inplco I feel like you’re taking disagreement personally and I would ask that you please don’t.
I can draft the Notices themselves, which can be inserted into the proposals with the appropriate links and support. But I feel strongly that nick.eth be given the opportunity to provide his input.
No, I am realising that this proposal is not worth my time. I am not going anywhere otherwise. To my surprise, it is two of the stewards who chose to comment before reading and derail the proposal while they were around in full capacity when the discussions took place. I have to be at the Solana Hacker House in Prague starting tomorrow evening so I do not have the time to continue what has been turned into an exercise of mumbo jumbo anyway. Priorities.
I’m sorry you feel it isn’t/wasn’t worth your time, but I’m glad you will be sticking around. This is completely new for all of us. I hope you don’t feel like you wasted your time, because we have made progress in the discussion. I don’t see any of it as mumbo jumbo. Anyway good luck in Prague and enjoy. Thanks for all of your time and effort, and I don’t feel it was for nothing. I guess we should wrap this thread up then, but I agree with @berrios.eth that @nick.eth 's input should be heard first. If he still comes around here, I think it’s been a few weeks. Edit - I’m completely wrong. Sorry Nick.
Nick? A few weeks? But he’s active in the Discuss almost every day.
Nick’s around daily several times
Dang I am sleep deprived, sorry. I’m trying. Embarrassing. Sorry.
Personally I do not think there is a problem - legally or socially - with having a single vote to decide if Brantly is replaced, and if so with whom. But if others feel strongly, we can separate them.
I’d strongly recommend holding both votes at the same time, however, with the second one written so that it only has effect if Brantly is removed by the first vote. I do not want us to be reduced to two directors on the Foundation if it is in any way avoidable.
Here is the Notice for the Brantly vote, to be inserted into a proposal:
Notice to The ENS Foundation:
Pursuant to Article 15 of the Articles of Association, the council, hereby, gives notice to the Foundation Company of a vote to remove Brantly Millegan as a director of the Foundation Company.
Whereas, the council undertook a vote, via Snapshot, to remove Brantly Millegan, as a director of the Foundation Company;
Whereas, by a majority of the votes cast is to remove Brantly Millegan, as a director of the Foundation Company;
Wherefore, Brantly Millegan is hereby removed as a director of The ENS Foundation and shall cease and desist all duties thereto.
The result to be formally noted in the council records and shall be promptly communicated to the Foundation Company without further process.
This Notice shall have no force or effect, if the vote to remove Brantly Millegan fails to obtain a majority of the votes cast.
Thank you. Would you mind drafting another for a parallel vote to select a new director, that only takes effect if he is removed?
Yes, I’ll start working on it.
I’ve drafted a parallel vote proposal. I’ll send it to @berrios.eth for review.
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 of a director of the Foundation Company, to serve pursuant to the terms of its Articles.
Whereas, the council undertook a vote, via Snapshot, to remove Brantly Millegan,
Whereas, the majority of votes cast was to remove Brantly MIllegan and formal Notice given to the Foundation Company of such result,
Whereas, the council undertook a second vote, via Snapshot, from among nominees of the council, to appoint a new director of the Foundation Company;
Wherefore, the person, if any, with the highest number of votes cost is hereby 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.
Rough drafts for the two parallel votes can be found here and are available for public comment. They are most a fork of @inplco’s original EP6 draft with some revised verbiage and helpful edits from @berrios.eth.
There are likely changes that still need to be made, but I am out of time for this evening if anyone want’s to leave comments on the docs or pick it up from here,.
Thank you. Shouldn’t there be a clause at the bottom, as with the other one, saying that it has no effect if the other vote does not pass?
[EP6] doesn’t have the updated Notice.