The question that @jkm.eth made in the metagov call was:
“Will this vote use the Snapshot UI?”"
The answer is yes. The assumption was that Snapshot implemented the Copeland method exactly like specified in " RFP for improving Ranked Choice Voting support in Snapshot". I’ll put the screenshot here, of the specific section that mentions the tiebreaker.
It’s simply wrong to say there is no reference or evidence. It’s not a subjective decision; it’s clearly stated.
There are 2 mistakes here:
- Metagov didn’t verify the algorithm against the Snapshot implementation. It’s impossible to foresee and think about all the variables and nuances of these processes. I fully own this mistake.
- Snapshot didn’t implement the tiebreaker part of the algorithm. There is no tiebreaker currently.
My position as MetaGov steward (Term 6)
If there was no evidence, I’d support this going to a token holder vote, because then we would be doing a subjective decision. Where possible, we should not take any subjective decisions. As shown above, there is clear evidence on rules that should be used on Copeland, and it’s simply misleading to say that it’s not the case.