The Council has the power, exercisable by notice to the Foundation Company, to appoint or remove one or more Directors of the Foundation Company.
I request the core team to take the necessary steps and initiate the Snapshot vote to identify sufficient quorum, and eventually move to voting on the executable, if quorum is reached. The conduct of Brantly Millegan goes against the very fabric of Web3 and the Constitution of the ENS DAO itself as prescribed in Clause 24 of the same document mentioned above. It is time that the ‘Council’ aka the ENS DAO is allowed to exercise their right to choose their representative.
You are accusing Brantly of misconduct but failed to produce evidence of such actions in this proposal. Right now, I see that the DAO has power to removal him, but that’s all.
I would suggest clearly stating the relevant information (ie, the tweets, spaces, etc) as well as any guidelines or specific clauses that he has violated.
If the current proposal is submitted, I will vote NO because I see no clear misconduct being displayed given the current information within the draft and it feels like an angry mob vote. This vibe is definitely something I do not want the DAO to give off.
Let me make it clear. This particular sentence implies that Brantly Millegan has done something that is against proper and expected conduct outlined in Clause 24, but when you look at Clause 24, it has nothing to do with conduct.
Putting myself out for slaughter on this one, but please hear me out.
First and foremost, I personally denounce all type of bigotry and rhetoric. Keep that in mind above all else.
But… and this is a big but…
Cancelling him outright isn’t the solution. It is childish and reactionary. Especially considering that this was posted in 2016. Brantly should come forward and apologize.
He deserves to at least be a part of the process if he is going to be removed from his position. Second… trying to conflate his beliefs with ENS is just petty. No reasonable person would read his offensive posts from 6 years ago and think “wow he’s talking about ENS.”
Just my two cents. Our differences can divide us or make us stronger.
To recap -
I disagree with deleting Brantly for his past biggoted comments
I think he should apologize and explain himself
If he doubles down and contends he hasn’t said/done anything wrong, I definitely have a problem with him maintaining his position at ENS and think he should resign.
But as it stands right now, I am against “terminating” him over a 6 year old tweet someone dug up.
Also fwiw because people care for… reasons… I’m a nonbinary atheist.
Less opinionated post about the situation. I think we should all not rush to conclusions and discuss this seriously. We definitely need to vote on something to happen, but forcing a termination and calling him a dictator isn’t it.
On 14 Jan 2022, Because of the racist, homophobic, and hurtful comments that were also in violation of Developer DAO rules, the DAO has decided to remove Cooper from core position in the DAO and have notified him of this. The members of the DAO, voted in their values. To members of the Developer DAO community that were harmed by this recent situation, the leadership team stood with them, not downplayed the situation. I expect the same stance from the ENS DAO too, if we are serious about being inclusive and respecting universal human rights.
Where were you all day yesterday when he was spewing shit? 4000 people heard him say what he said on Twitter spaces. Everyone saw what he tweeted. This is not a court case to provide evidence over a proposal. This is a civil action vote taken up by decentralised shareholders in the DAO after living the horror that many many of us did. DAO is effectively Board of Directors and the DAO will vote on it.
The clauses are from ENS’s Articles of Association and Founding Documents, not a memorandum of agreement. Whether he has gone against the principles of ‘The ENS Foundation and its objects’ is to be determined by the DAO and the Constitution (which he has; read the Constitution). Articles of Association do not elaborate on it since they are not meant to. They are guidelines, not written law, not at least until the DAO votes on it. Get used to legal terminology before throwing shade. If you want to talk law, we can.
Do your own research. He was on spaces saying awful things. People are rightfully upset because his stated views that he double downed on are hurtful to marginalized groups. People are upset for a reason. He is bad for ENS because he creates segregation of users by his words and actions. Many have removed their .eth name, the price is down and will abandon the platform. If you can’t get behind it from a human perspective, which would be very sad, then from a business perspective it doesn’t make sense to keep him. There are plenty of talented and inclusive individuals in web3.
Besidesa material changes to the value of the ENS governance token, and the unaligned opinions on specific subject matter to yourself and anyone participating within The ENS Foundaton internal affairs, has Brantly.eth acted in a manner against that which he has signed for, as a Director of The ENS Foundation. First this is information available to the public, to delegates and the broader community:
The ENS Foundation is a required legal entity for many reasons, and has three directors: Nick Johnson, Brantly Millegan, and Kevin Gaspar. All of them are core members.
The ENS Foundation has one supervisor. The supervisor is an administrative role whose job is to make sure that the directors are doing their jobs in accordance with Cayman Islands law. The position of supervisor is filled by a Cayman Islands firm, DS Limited.
In this instance, my conjecture would be that Brantly.eth has to communicate with the supervisory firm, DS Limited, and directors Kevin Gaspar and Nick Johnson. Again conjecture here, looking at the governing constraints that [currently] exist, Brantly.eth will continue at ENS DAO and working within Web3
On the technical side, there is an internal Stewards’ meeting today on this subject. I am sure everyone important will be present there and something will come off it. In any case, any delegate can initiate a vote on Snapshot; I am simply adhering to courteous practise and asking the core team instead to take it up.