I support @Illest and @KeizerMc’s comments
Overall a good effort, but not quite worked out
There should be clear criteria for a candidate
There should already be a contribution to the community on the candidate’s part
What about voting…?
I remember the Easter Egg votes… There were no clear criteria, some people plugged in everyone, some people bought votes, and for some reason the team selectively regulated the number of votes…
I support @Illest and @KeizerMc’s comments
Agree with this one but better to have some qualifications first. Good idea btw!
To clarify, the role of the Governance Council is only to approve what goes to Snapshot. As you said, the proposal will still be dependent on the sRBW holders’ votes. Let’s think of the Governance Council as the people that checks for completeness of information on the proposal and for the soundness/legitimacy of the proposal rather than the people that actually “pass” proposals! Getting a proposal to pass solely relies on the collective voice of the DAO.
It’s also important to note that we do have to respect the result of votes regardless of whether it aligns to our personal positions or not. It’s the same for us, the developers. We will honor the result of DAO votes, regardless of where we stand. (Though we might have to intervene when it’s really damaging but that’s going to be really rare) It is everyone’s duty and right, however, to discuss facts and circulate information so that everyone is capable of making an informed decision. I do think that that’s where invested community members can contribute - by spreading the right information far and wide! ^^
Since nomination will be done by community members, I would think that the question here is… In your personal opinion, what kind of person do you think will serve the position best? We all have our own idea of what this person would be like - it might be similar, it might be different.
I do think that actively discussing this within the community will be beneficial to:
- get everyone involved in the process
- get a feel of what the community wants from their governance council
- know how other people chose their nominees and compare notes!
- gather support for a nominee you want to support
- listen to other people’s POV and change your position (if they convince you enough!)
A good, healthy discourse is best to at least understand’s everyone’s position.
I do understand that cheating may take place in community events, it’s important to note though that the Council Members will be decided through a Snapshot / DAO vote as stated in the proposal. I hope that reassures you somehow.
Thanks for putting this together! This would be a good way for you to encourage users to gauge their nominees in the same way. I am very glad to have helpful community members like you looking out for the project’s best interest. I hope that we can continue to rely on you to encourage users to come here and discuss!
I’d like to supplement a few things. The governance council meetings will be called upon by the Governance Facilitator (that’s me! ^^). I will act as a representative from Laguna Games to ensure that things are moving along. I will not be voting - just really facilitating. For now, the plan is to hold the meeting every 15th and 30th (maybe providing that these dates do not fall on a weekend in consideration of each council members’ weekend plans).
As for the second part, I do want to supplement that each Council Member will need to publish (ie. put into writing) their positions for compiling, which will then be published as an official report/minutes of the session for the community to review!
Candidates who have no qualifications at all are risky. First-time candidates may consider Founders Badge holders, but those who have placed sell orders must be excluded.
This seems like a very good decentralized solution to some problems, good!
Good steps in the right direction
Well rounded council to represent all different players and ideas as things go to Snapshot. Sweet
Impressive, useful step toward intelligent community governance.
Great framework but I have a few suggestions for additional knowledge categories.
- Game Development
- Web Development
- Business Development
I also think we should require members be part of the loyalty program in good standing with at least 500 RBW staked for 1 year.
This is a great idea, and hopefully the unicorn team will be able to step up their technical development efforts, which have been postponed several times in a row recently
Can we sign up and vote now? I’ve already chosen the people who will vote
Just to clarify its more of a meeting in 15 and 30th [which ever is a weekend] then on the meeting we would put our votes thru writing. to be compiled in your report correct?
also from the proposal cost. it said that it does not have any cost and will be administered by the Governance Facilitator. does this mean the council will still receive benefits besides the badge, yes?
I created a Template for this. also im thinking of maybe this is better in an Excel file. but for now are these usually the items a council needs to fill up for the meeting?
I updated the file.
you can check and revisit.
also, I did not include the 500RBW one as a specific requirement because i feel like user should have a weight depends on how much RBW he has but not to be judged by it.
I think im going to create a separate file for user checklist on an excel by the weekend.
Was gonna add two cents but Keizer already said it well!
I believe whoever ends up choosing the candidates (LG or community) can learn a few things from Keizer’s guidelines.
I think for the first half of the year it is necessary to limit the applicants with the badges of the founders. There are only 100 of them
On the 15th and the 30th providing it’s not a weekend. If it’s a weekend, it’ll be moved to the next weekday. Or if everyone agrees to do it on weekend, then it’ll always be the weekend nearest to the 15th or the 30th. During the meeting, the council will discuss and deliberate. After that, the council will vote and put their position into writing.
As mentioned, there will be no cost to the CU DAO so no other additional benefits will be allocated apart from the NFT Badges mentioned above. Hope that helps!
As for finding the correct candidates, we understand that we do not want to elect the wrong people. We also do not want that to happen! Our official stand as Laguna Games, though, is that we will remain neutral during the nomination and during the election. We will not endorse anybody nor teach anybody how to choose their candidates. We will also not gate the nomination to certain groups of users. We will, however, continue to encourage an open discussion so that everyone will be able to make an informed decision. I think you’re doing a good job in engaging people in that discussion so please keep it up! ^^
We are working, however, on an addendum to the proposal that’s will allow the community to motion for a vote of no confidence if any of the elected council member stops contributing or if they start voting against the good of the community/DAO. ^^
This proposal makes a lot of sense, but I think it is too soon. I would much rather have a longer period of centralized, experienced decision-making as we head into what could be a long bear. Aron and the team have served us well, I recommend they continue to play the role they do and postpone this council step for at least 6 months.
What are we voting on here?
To give Axie Labs sole access to genetics info to be paid to build a tool with?
Or did they figure it out and are proposing to provide public access to it for payment?
If they already have broken the genome and are offering to build a tool with that info, then I am interested; but if this proposal will require the CU team to provide data on how to read genetics to Axie Labs while nobody else has access to that info still, then it’s a hard no from me.