Thanks
@kot. Not trying to step on anyone's toes, I will actively try to stay on point and refrain from personal accusations.
The way I am thinking about it, it can be helpful to distinguish between the different kinds of proposals that get put out there and how they fit into our DGBB model.
There are:
"
MN budget" -- when the MN ops vote on a proposal for the purpose of funding a project with certain promised deliverables
vs.
"
MN feedback" -- when MN ops are asked to vote on a question for the purpose of gauging support for a hypothetical idea with no immediate deliverables (ex. the blocksize increase, demo's "voting with numbers").
vs.
"
MN mandate" -- when MN ops vote on a question instructing a paid individual or group to take a particular action (ex. Amanda's possible proposal about the old YT channel being removed or deactivated)
I think we have done a great job with MN budgets. It's these other two areas that are largely untested with respect to how they fit and what we can reasonably expect to happen.
For the feedback and the mandate, this may involve an instruction which may or may not be technically possible at all. And for a mandate in particular, it may involve instructing an individual to spend time/effort or money, or to use their own property in a certain way.
I think we can agree that the network really can't (and shouldn't) be able to force people to do things or use their property in a certain way. However, when combined with the fact that this is an individual or group that is already paid by the blockchain, part of the purpose for such a proposal is the message/implication that failure to comply may put their funding at risk.
Of course, with the example that led up to this today it is even more complex because the mandate may apply to just one individual in a larger group which is paid all in one lumped-together budget. But we may have such a mandate on our hands now and it will definitely not be the only one that happens over Dash's long lifetime
. What should we reasonably expect from proposal creators and the individuals/groups it is directed to?
It has been mentioned in the other thread, if there is doubt/lack of clarity/or if is only about one part of a larger proposal, then perhaps the mandate should be proposed and voted on specifically to make sure it is a fair vote. Agreed. Then what happens? -- what if the MNs vote on a mandate and there are more yes-votes than no-votes, but the proposal does not make it into the budget? And regardless of whether it actually makes it into the budget, how do we measure whether to expect compliance?
