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.
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.
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.
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.
i appreciate clarity and certainly wish to avoid talking past each other.
there is no difference to the point i was making whether ‘job’ or ‘your preferred term’ or ‘x’. 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.
it’s 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 don’t 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 don’t just (not) happen because you want them to (not) happen – 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 ‘shitposting’.
I apologise for my strong language but your comments don’t deserve better response simply because they possess no merit.
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 doesn’t 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.
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 ‘Budget Day’ 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.
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, there’s 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 it’s not like Brantly is even doing anything right now so a formal removal wouldn’t actually change anything to introduce urgency.
