Dash Incubator: Vote on Appointment of new Proposal Owner

[AndyDark]

Hi there.

A group of Admins from Dash Incubator have approached me and asked me to mediate a vote on appointing a new Proposal Owner for Dash Incubator. As i'm familiar with the Rules which govern this process (from writing them), i've agreed to create this thread to present the Vote and collect the results.

Rules
As per Section 5.3 of the Rules (which represent the contract with the Dash Network that each Incubator proposal agrees to implement)

"The Proposal Owner can be replaced through a vote where >50% of Admins vote for a new Admin to be the PO. If that occurs, the newly elected PO will assume all PO responsibilities and the existing PO will transfer all funds from the Proposal Wallet to a wallet controlled by the new PO."

Vote Details

Vote	Appointment of Sam Kirby (samkirby22) as the new Dash Incubator Proposal Owner effective immediately
Admins initiating the vote	Ash Francis, Cloudwheels, Dashameter, Sam Kirby
Admin "Yes" votes required for quorum decision for the vote to pass	6/11
Vote Options	Yes / No / Abstain
Vote closes	Votes will be tallied in 2 Weeks (by 00:00 UTC on 26th July)

Results
Results of the votes are as follows... Admins please state/confirm your votes that i'm listing in the thread below.

Admin Name	Trello Username	Vote Cast
Ash Francis	ashfrancis	Yes
Cloudwheels	cloudwheels	Yes
Dashameter	dashameter	Yes
Sam Kirby	samkirby22	Yes
Hilawe	hilawe	No
Ivan Shumkov	shumie	Abstain
Pasta	pastapastapasta	No
Quantum Explorer	quantumexplorer	Abstain
riongull	riongull	No
Tim Munsell	Spectaprod	No
Wiz Lee	wizlee3	No

Note that the list of Admins eligible to vote is determined by the users with Admin rights on the Incubator's Trello board which is how users exercise Admin functions in Incubator:

Thanks
Andy Freer

 

[Sam Kirby]

I support this and will be looking to implement a managed transition to the governance committee format of leadership already proposed and accepted. This will give the engagement and autonomy of all senior Incubator members necessary to drive the focus and accountability the dash community rightly expect of us.

 

[dashameter]

Voted yes as this will accelerate the transition to more accountability and unleash the potential of the incubator to serve the network more effectively.

 

[cloudwheels]

I can confirm my vote as YES in anticipation of accelerating the move to a more democratic and devolved Incubator governance structure.

 

[qwizzie]

This whole voting on a new proposal owner has very bad timing, specially with Rion's Dash Incubator budget proposal (https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3) already active on the network and receiving votes. Then there is also a competing Dash Incubator budget proposal from 'Dashincubator' that is not being acknowledged by Rion (Dash Incubator Proposal Owner) and is causing a lot of confusion (this one : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3-updated), as it not only request funding for a different amount of Dash (600 dash instead of 900 dash) , but by now is also requesting to hold any voting on both budget proposals, untill this vote on the appointment of a new proposal owner concludes (which could take a week !!).

This all seems very rushed and badly communicated internally. It also feels like an internal Dash Incubator coup, the way this is being played out currently.
Why is this played out this way ? Why does Rion needs to be replaced by Sam Kirby as new Proposal Owner of Dash Incubator this urgently, that it actually interferes with the Dash Incubator budget proposal (s) ?

I decided to vote NO on the following budget proposal, as i don't like how this has been played out : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3-updated
I also decided to wait with voting on Rion's budget proposal, untill he updated his proposal text to provide us with more clarity (he indicated that should be visible the next couple of days).

Comment from Rion in his budget proposal text :

Source : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3

Also a warning : i have a strong dislike for powergames, which reflects on how i vote. If Rion gets replaced by Sam Kirby as new Proposal Owner for Dash Incubator without a sufficient explanation to the Dash community or to the Dash masternode operators on why this is necessary and why there is such urgency to it, i will feel forced to withdraw my support for future Dash Incubator budget proposals.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

@AndyDark I believe that the spirit of 50% of admins more means 50% of voting admins. I had already expressed doubt about me, Ivan and Pasta voting on internal Incubator direction, as it can lead to conflicts of interest. It is good that we are admins there as it allows us greater cooperation but voting on such a thing makes me uncomfortable because I do not know the underlying reasons why these admins want this change.

 

[qwizzie]

@AndyDark : what is the point of having a Dash Incubator Proposal Owner formally appointed, when Dash Incubator admins can just hide behind a group identity like 'DashIncubator' and create their own Dash Incubator budget proposals ? How will masternode operators know that such a budget proposal comes from the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner ?

In this situation it became pretty clear early on because two competing Dash Incubator budget proposals emerged, one claimed by Rion (the officially appointed Dash Incubator Proposal Owner) and one claimed by 'DashIncubator', a Dash Incubator admin who apparently does not have the right to issue such a budget proposal in the first place as he is not the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner ? At least i hope he does not have that right, or all Dash Incubator admins can do what happened yesterday and just create a Dash Incubator budget proposal of their own. Which could get really messy.

This will need to be corrected in the future. For transparency. Whoever creates Dash Incubator budget proposals need to do it under their own name, so masternode operators can verify if this is coming from the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner or not.

 

[rion]

Obviously my vote is no.

I wish I could give an update to my proposal text and comment on this new development (vote to replace me) before I end my day, but summarizing a 9-month long discussion/debate was too much for the time I had today. I'll continue to work on it tomorrow.

I would ask other admins to please hold off voting until I've had a chance to speak with them and/or update my proposal text.

Also, there is no specification that I'm aware regarding the duration of this vote. If 1 week is to be chosen (which itself seems controversial), then it should at least last that long, not when a quorum is reached. This would allow time for admins to possibly change votes as some MNOs do in our main voting system. As it stands, I could go to sleep tonight and wake up with a closed vote without even having had a chance to talk to any admins. This is being rushed for some reason.

 

[xkcd]

Also a warning : i have a strong dislike for powergames, which reflects on how i vote. If Rion gets replaced by Sam Kirby as new Proposal Owner for Dash Incubator without a sufficient explanation to the Dash community or to the Dash masternode operators on why this is necessary and why there is such urgency to it, i will feel forced to withdraw my support for future Dash Incubator budget proposals.

I agree, which is why I am voting NO on both proposals.

 

[AndyDark]

Obviously my vote is no.

I wish I could give an update to my proposal text and comment on this new development (vote to replace me) before I end my day, but summarizing a 9-month long discussion/debate was too much for the time I had today. I'll continue to work on it tomorrow.

I would ask other admins to please hold off voting until I've had a chance to speak with them and/or update my proposal text.

Also, there is no specification that I'm aware regarding the duration of this vote. If 1 week is to be chosen (which itself seems controversial), then it should at least last that long, not when a quorum is reached. This would allow time for admins to possibly change votes as some MNOs do in our main voting system. As it stands, I could go to sleep tonight and wake up with a closed vote without even having had a chance to talk to any admins. This is being rushed for some reason.

Please don't bring this issue into the Incubator proposal. You're responsibility as PO is to represent the interests of the Incubator and raise funding for the Admins in Proposals, not use them as a platform to lobby to the MNO network about internal Incubator governance.

I agree it was a mistake for these Admins to raise a second proposal and I advised they remove it, but from the call I joined after the last proposal, you did agree to go with their decentralisation plan and raise a joint proposal with the other Admins this cycle, not raise it unilaterally, but you did that anyway (not sure why)

Either way, there's 2 issues here: Proposal in the cycle from Rion (which is valid and by the Rules, the second one isn't) and this Incubator governance-decision vote (which is also valid and by the Rules), so please lets keep them separate.

 

[AndyDark]

Obviously my vote is no.

I wish I could give an update to my proposal text and comment on this new development (vote to replace me) before I end my day, but summarizing a 9-month long discussion/debate was too much for the time I had today. I'll continue to work on it tomorrow.

I would ask other admins to please hold off voting until I've had a chance to speak with them and/or update my proposal text.

Also, there is no specification that I'm aware regarding the duration of this vote. If 1 week is to be chosen (which itself seems controversial), then it should at least last that long, not when a quorum is reached. This would allow time for admins to possibly change votes as some MNOs do in our main voting system. As it stands, I could go to sleep tonight and wake up with a closed vote without even having had a chance to talk to any admins. This is being rushed for some reason.

I've changed the vote time limit to 2 weeks, and we tally votes at that time.

"Votes will be tallied in 2 Weeks (by 00:00 UTC on 26th July)"

That way, whatever happens with this vote, it doesn't affect the current Proposal raised by Rion within this cycle.

Andy

 

[AndyDark]

@AndyDark I believe that the spirit of 50% of admins more means 50% of voting admins. I had already expressed doubt about me, Ivan and Pasta voting on internal Incubator direction, as it can lead to conflicts of interest. It is good that we are admins there as it allows us greater cooperation but voting on such a thing makes me uncomfortable because I do not know the underlying reasons why these admins want this change.

Ok, yes you did say this before. I've removed you from the Quorum tally. If Pasta and Shumkov want the same that's fine.

 

[Ivan Shumkov]

Hello! I wish the best to Incubator, but such as @QuantumExplorer, I don't feel I should be a part of this decision. Especially, I don't know the reasoning and consequences.

 

[AndyDark]

Hello! I wish the best to Incubator, but such as @QuantumExplorer, I don't feel I should be a part of this decision. Especially, I don't know the reasoning and consequences.

Hey man! Sure no problem. I've removed you from the quorum tally too. If you change your mind, there's 2 weeks until the tally is taken.

Andy

 

[Sam Kirby]

@qwizzie
I understand and appreciate your Proposal concerns and at the timing/urgency of this vote. Posting two Proposals was a mistake and the second has now been withdrawn as a result. Any future Proposal will include a sufficient explanation that clarifies how that happened and why this vote was necessary.

All Incubator Admins are extremely passionate community members who want the best for Dash and Incubator. Although we try our best to keep disputes like this under wraps, due to the nature of an ever evolving (striving to be) decentralised autonomous organization, we failed on this occasion.

 

[rion]

Note that according to the current rules…

"The Proposal Owner can be replaced through a vote where >50% of Admins vote for a new Admin to be the PO."

…the number of votes required to change the PO is based on total admin count (currently 11), not the voting admin count.

 

[spectaprod]

I vote NO, because I don’t think this is the best way to usher in the changes (most of which I like).

 

[AndyDark]

Note that according to the current rules…



…the number of votes required to change the PO is based on total admin count (currently 11), not the voting admin count.

The intention there is to take a decision of Admins with a stake in the governance. As QE said DCG Admins have COI and don’t want to be counted (which is the de facto situation on internal decision tallies since they joined). If we take your interpretation using terms you've added in, it's going to be practically impossible to ever change the PO role which is obviously not in the spirit of the rules.

Plus if we just take the literal interpretation of the rules you were never voted into the PO slot in the first place as is required, meaning all of this is mute ...obviously the de facto situation is the other Admins accepted you're informal appointment as PO which is what matters.

I think the best thing here is we allow the Admins with the stake to vote in the way we all know the system is supposed to work which is 8 people, 6 of whom have voted now and 2 to go… lets allow this to play out fairly and keep Incubator true to its principles so the people with the stake can appoint who they want in the PO role and keep Incubator decentralized.

 

[spectaprod]

I vote NO, because I don’t think this is the best way to usher in the changes (most of which I like).

I should add that my vote is my preference on this specific question, not a vote of confidence (or lack of) in the structure the incubator is working to adopt.

 

[AndyDark]

I should add that my vote is my preference on this specific question, not a vote of confidence (or lack of) in the structure the incubator is working to adopt.

Hey Specta. Understood, thanks... i've added your vote as a 'No' in the results table.