[Pre-proposal]Governance question adopting Roberts Rules influenced procedure

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darren

Darren

Active member
So this is a very simple idea. The idea is that if any proposal gets more no votes than yes votes, that vote is always interpreted as the MNOs did not speak/act.

That way, if there is a rather malformed proposal, a masternode owner can with a clear conscious vote no and not worry about any misinterpretation of the vote.

This would be a proposal seeking only to recover the 5 DASH payment.
 
I got a doubt about this idea! but sounds interesting.

if the NO vote is always considered as the MNOs did not speak or act. How can you know when the MNOs are voting NO because they do not agree with the proposal or proposal owner?
 
That's not a problem with the post I made that is a more general problem.

Currently this proposal is out there https://www.dashcentral.org/p/fernando-cmo

If No means that the masternodes do not act then it would be clear that a no vote would not remove the CMO.

Also if No votes mean the masternodes do not act then the submitter would have to reword their submission so that the action is taken with a yes vote.
 
Yes sure i understand. The thing is that the MNO Shouldn't have a say in DFOs management. That proposal doesn't make any sense right?

a NO vote for that proposal means that the Proposal owner won't get the 10 Dash of funding.

Even if that proposal gets a massive NO voting Fernando will keep being DCG CMO.

And on the contrary if it gets a massive YES he will also keep being CMO but the prorposal owner gets 10 Dash out of doing NOTHING.

At least that's what i understand from that Joke-proposal. I think only Trust Protectors and The DCG board can make decisions about the leadership in DCG, nobody else.

If the majority of MNO ar against of Fernando being the CMO then they should comunicate it to the Trust Protectors or Comunicate it to the CEO and other members of the Board directly.

Or just stop voting yes to the DCG proposal because of the Marketing leadership. But that's unlikely to happen. LOL.
 
A No vote is, in fact, an act of speaking.

In theory, an Abstain vote is suffice. Can we not just update the documentation to say that Abstain also means Ambiguous / Invalid / Reject? Or we could just add a Reject option so that the reason is clear.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterDash said:
A No vote is, in fact, an act of speaking.

In theory, an Abstain vote is suffice. Can we not just update the documentation to say that Abstain also means Ambiguous / Invalid / Reject? Or we could just add a Reject option so that the reason is clear.
Click to expand...

I think that could work.

Either way i think that the voting has nothing to do with the HR managing. DCG board positions are not positions to be elected. that world turn DCG into the Head of our decentralized organization, so it would not be so decentralized. That in theory would turn Ryan Taylor into the president of Dash? LOL i suppose nobody wants to think that the Dash Ecosystem works like that. would not be looked as a good thing by the public eye.

If we are as a community part of this belief then we are recognizing that DCG are on top of other DFO so then there is a CEO of Dash.

The realilty says that DCG is another DFO. the most important maybe. but still a DFO. They manage their own HR situation as any other organization, company or entreprise in the world.
 
Before introducing yet another poll, I think we should check with DCG if they are working on some kind of coding solution. I think I saw nmarley made a comment about this on Dash Central.
 
My main concern is that there almost 5000 MNO and the voting MNOs are so little... that doesn't really represent the interest of the network then, just the interest of a small portion. it is easy to turn a vote into a corrupt vote.
 
Gabriel Mitacchione said:
My main concern is that there almost 5000 MNO and the voting MNOs are so little... that doesn't really represent the interest of the network then, just the interest of a small portion. it is easy to turn a vote into a corrupt vote.
Click to expand...

It depends on the proposal and it depends on how voting is going. Many MNOs watch the voting and only intervene when things are a bit touch and go.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
It depends on the proposal and it depends on how voting is going. Many MNOs watch the voting and only intervene when things are a bit touch and go.
Click to expand...
I get that. probably have lived the experience too with Dash Latam. my point is that being a MNO and not voting means not being responsible. When you get a MN you get a bunch of benefits like the ROI but you also get responsability "looking for the Dash Network projects that will increase adoption, transaction volume or Market capital". It does not make sense to have a democratic DAO with 5000 MNO and only 1000 or 1500 are the ones that actually control de Network. It makes us look centralized.
 
Gabriel Mitacchione said:
I get that. probably have lived the experience too with Dash Latam. my point is that being a MNO and not voting means not being responsible. When you get a MN you get a bunch of benefits like the ROI but you also get responsability "looking for the Dash Network projects that will increase adoption, transaction volume or Market capital". It does not make sense to have a democratic DAO with 5000 MNO and only 1000 or 1500 are the ones that actually control de Network. It makes us look centralized.
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment but I think it's a bit more complex than that. Even if we doubled the node count, someone somewhere is going to call it "centralized" simply because it's pay-to-play. What they actually mean is, "them and us, the rich and the poor". People inherently want to feel a system is fair and inclusive. But from my point of view, the upside is, the economics keeps out state actors from interfering with the mechanics.

More to your point about voting, there are a lot of "invisible" voters using services like CrowdNode. Unfortunately it's not trustless, but hopefully that will come along later. Also, there is a discussion on reddit about the reallocation of rewards. I would not vote for such a thing unless there was a fundamental addition to the network, say, a new class of node. In this scenario, I think it would be entirely possible to give them voting rights. Would that increase voter participation? - I don't know, but I think it would help in the story of decentralization.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
I understand the sentiment but I think it's a bit more complex than that. Even if we doubled the node count, someone somewhere is going to call it "centralized" simply because it's pay-to-play. What they actually mean is, "them and us, the rich and the poor". People inherently want to feel a system is fair and inclusive. But from my point of view, the upside is, the economics keeps out state actors from interfering with the mechanics.

More to your point about voting, there are a lot of "invisible" voters using services like CrowdNode. Unfortunately it's not trustless, but hopefully that will come along later. Also, there is a discussion on reddit about the reallocation of rewards. I would not vote for such a thing unless there was a fundamental addition to the network, say, a new class of node. In this scenario, I think it would be entirely possible to give them voting rights. Would that increase voter participation? - I don't know, but I think it would help in the story of decentralization.
Click to expand...

I actually like what services like crowdnode offer i think it brings value to the Dash DAO to keep it more decentralized. I hope the amount of people using it increases on time because right now those votes do not have the impact to change things.

A new class of node would be an interesting way of including more Dash Investors to the Voting Community. somthing like a MiniMasterNodeOwner (mMNO) (or something like that).

I also would include in the group of new voters, DFO leaders or Proposal owners. Obviously not just anybody who's got approved a proposal but someone who has been part of the community for a long time and have at least an X number of succesfull proposals passed and funded. i would add to the requisite list to have a seal of approval from the Dash Watch organization to demonstrate that this PO's projects passed all the audits and it's trustworthy.

It's just an idea! what do you think?
 
Gabriel Mitacchione said:
I actually like what services like crowdnode offer i think it brings value to the Dash DAO to keep it more decentralized. I hope the amount of people using it increases on time because right now those votes do not have the impact to change things.

A new class of node would be an interesting way of including more Dash Investors to the Voting Community. somthing like a MiniMasterNodeOwner (mMNO) (or something like that).

I also would include in the group of new voters, DFO leaders or Proposal owners. Obviously not just anybody who's got approved a proposal but someone who has been part of the community for a long time and have at least an X number of succesfull proposals passed and funded. i would add to the requisite list to have a seal of approval from the Dash Watch organization to demonstrate that this PO's projects passed all the audits and it's trustworthy.

It's just an idea! what do you think?
Click to expand...

I don't know about Proposal Owners having a vote, Pay to Play is controversial.

Imo Dash Watch is way too expensive. I don't knock what they do, but simply too expensive for the actual work they do. To be fair, I think that's true for others, such as Dash News. I would like to see Dash Watch and Dash News have some competition, but unfortunately it has never come about.

Yes, a mini masternode, though I wouldn't call it that, it would need a new role. I was thinking Sprinter Nodes, nodes that could act as a global VPN / CDN and as a fallback mechanism to masternodes in the event of catastrophe..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top