“Let[ting] the DAO have some ability to engage in genuine discourse” is exactly what I am trying to do - by putting forward an alternate proposal and discussing it - and what you are trying to circumvent by starting a vote on your proposal while it is still being actively discussed.
I’ve made an updated Voting Demo for voting with EP6.5:
I am now very confident that this solution can be both simple to use and expressive, specially if combined with a Pairwisevote style match to create a “pre-ballot”.
6 Likes
I never tried to bypass discussion. This is an unfair mischaracterization. I have gone to great lengths to encourage discussion. Even the comments you’re pointing at were formed as questions meant to inspire discussion on the value of continuing this debate.
1 Like
I really love to see the use of AI in the wild like this. Great example!
1 Like
I like both proposals, and will vote yes on both.
I think they are both better than the original proposal, but only slightly. Overall think that making these changes at the last minute was probably a mistake… even though they make the process better, I think the extra coordination probably outweighs the benefit.
If I had to choose one, I would probably choose Nicks version as it is slightly more expressive, and I think the “split votes” is a feature not a bug… even though many people would say that it puts people who made 2 proposals at a potential disadvantage.
But that debate on whether splitting votes is a good thing or a bad thing shows that the game theory behind structuring SP proposals changes a lot when we make these seemingly minor changes and its a horrible practice to do them during the process.
However, the time delay and opportunity cost of 50+ very impactful people spending their time bikeshedding on this vote is a sunk cost. So since we are here, I approve both votes. 
2 Likes
My priority for the outcome of EP 6.4 or 6.5 is to provide me with a UI that increases my understanding of how my vote will be calculated so that I can predictably vote on service providers and a $4.5M capital allocation decision that will provide the most benefit for ENS.
In contrast, to where we were three weeks ago with a vanilla Snapshot implementation, I believe that either of these proposal are massive improvement in UI/UX.
I don’t see either of the options steering more than a marginal difference on the outcome of voting results, and if we’re so worried about the margins of the (massive) $4.5M service provider budget we should probably be focusing on that size rather than having everyone in the DAO discussing and debating the esoteric details of voting theory.
I voted in favor of both of EP 6.4 and EP 6.5. I recognise this nullifies a preference, but I believe they are both viable and I wanted to protest the fragmentation this is causing.
I am happy to see the level of engagement (multiple calls, weeks telegram notifications on blast) because we don’t need the DAO or Governance for obvious decisions – we need governance when the decision is important and unclear.
The amount of heat in the conversations is proportional to the level of both care and consequence in the decision-making at hand, but to feel undertones of contempt toward one another in some of these discussions disheartening.
6 Likes
Results are in for:
⬡ [EP 6.4] [Social] Service Provider Season 2 Vote Amendment Proposal proposal: off-chain voting | 156 voters | 1,553,205 votes
and
⬡ [EP 6.5] [Social] Service Provider Season 2 Vote Amendment Proposal II proposal: off-chain voting | 161 voters | 1,474,983 votes
5 Likes