Dash Incubator: Vote on Appointment of new Proposal Owner

[AndyDark]

Sorry Andy, but deliberately excluding the recused admins from the total number of admins required for quorum due to your personal interpretation of the rules, could very well invalidate the outcome of this vote or at the very least make this a very messy vote.

Hey Qwizzie - just to clarify, recusal means to eliminate oneself from a process...recusal from voting doesn't mean you vote something it means you eliminate yourself from eligibility to vote.

Secondly, you can comment here obviously, but if you're not at least an Incubator contributor or someone with eligibility / standing in the Incubator community, trying to sway votes or influence the process probably isn't the fairest thing to do.

 

[AndyDark]

Edit: So i've removed recusal and replaced it with abstain... @QuantumExplorer @Ivan Shumkov so your votes are now "abstain", but as I mentioned, be aware in terms of Incubator governance it's going to be tallied the same as a "No" vote.

 

[qwizzie]

At this point i am glad this is done on a public Dash forum, for all to see and not behind some closed doors. There is something to say for transparency.
And i am not so much trying to sway votes or influence the process, i just like to see this kept a fair process. Which it looks like it is now.

 

[AshFrancis]

I will keep this brief; Rion had agreed to move towards a dedicated group posting the proposals and a transition to a more decentralized incubator leadership model, his posting of a proposal in his name is reneging on that - whatever the reason.

I have not been fully following all the ins and outs but ultimately the migration towards a decentralized incubator leadership model hasn't yet happened and placing Sam as PO via this vote will see that happen. I don't care about Sam vs Rion, nor do I care for personal conflict, I just want to do my work and I am almost completely inactive at the incubator at the moment which is frustrating as I really enjoyed when I was a very active admin and felt we were bringing a lot of value to Dash.

I vote to support Sam taking over as PO, purely for the purpose of pushing towards a decentralized model at the top:

The Trust Protectors act as 6 with majority voting
The Dash Investment Foundation Supervisors act as 6 with majority voting
The Dash Incubator acts as Rion who has made threats historically to remove admins to ensure his vision is enacted. I respect Rion but this isn't the way this should be done and saying the 'DAO' sits above the incubator is a cop-out as we know how slowly DAO governance runs and would be completely ineffectual in running the incubator.

I don't think this is healthy for the incubator or healthy for Dash. I'm sure there are reasons WHY the transition towards a decentralized supervisor model hasn't materialized but this seems a step towards that for me. Hence my vote; Yes.

 

[AndyDark]

Hey @rion ..so these admins are apparently unhappy with the centralisation of the PO role and that the decentralisation plan (which I remember you agreeing to in the March call we had with them) hasn’t been enacted for some reason, what’s your response to that?

Are you planning to enact that plan or some variation of it and how? Or what’s your plan for the future of proposal ownership in the Incubator and how to keep your Admins happy?

 

[AndyDark]

@AndyDark and others.

I vote No.

I agree with QuantumExplorer and Ivan, that we have not been highly involved in the operations of the Incubator (I've probably had the highest level of involvement). I do not have an opinion on the actual question of who should be the PO of the incubator, I do not as of this point know enough as to why Sam Kirby and the others would like to replace Rion.

However, I am not recusing my vote as Sam and Ivan are, primarily due to the interpretation of the rules being pushed by Andy. The rules are clear. "The Proposal Owner can be replaced through a vote where >50% of Admins vote for a new Admin to be the PO." There is no difference according to these rules between not voting and voting no. The rule only states that more than 50% must vote yes. My preferred opinion would be to not vote, as I am neither against or in favor of Rion staying the PO. However, this interpretation of the rules is forcing me to vote No. Again this vote is not stating that I am supporting or opposing Rion, but I am expressly opposing the interpretation of the rules that Andy has stated above under the clear language of the rules.

Hey @Pasta ..so i've removed the recusal option, do you want to keep the vote you gave now or change it?

 

[cloudwheels]

Echoing @AndyDark 's comment above, my view is that this vote is much more of a means to an end than a decision about personalities.

I have already said that I didn't moot the idea of this vote, but I was quickly convinced by its necessity as a means to move on from months of frustration (again, not necessarily my own) at Rion's unwillingness to devolve the governance of the incubator.

It is unfortunate that this couldn't have been concluded swiftly and internally, particularly when, as @spectaprod , @Hilawe and @wizlee have indicated, there is considerable consensus around the changes, which would in any event disband the PO tasks in their current form, from all admins, including those not supporting this vote.

Since we are now in a public forum, however, I also raise the question to @rion - are you willing to commit to the largely agreed changes to progress the Incubator to a more democratic structure, including moving away from a centralised PO role?, or do you wish to continue ignoring the clearly frustrated admins who have been putting in a great deal of effort to bring about these changes, only to be met by what very much looks like a despotic attempt at retaining centralised power for yourself?

I don't think anyone would have anything but the greatest of respect for the dedication you have shown to the incubator over the past 12 months or so, and it would be a great relief to me if I were able to dispel my growing concerns that you are only interested in power for power's sake by sharing your commitment to the continued democratic health of the incubator in this public forum, and then acting on that accordingly.

 

[mayoreee]

Hi all,

The who: I am one of the last few active Incubator Developers.

I just started following this conversation here, and it's rather unfortunate that things played out this way.

On the bright side, I hope Incubator Admins will take this as an important lesson - trying to resolve disputes with such high stakes internally for 9+ months without success wasn't a great idea. I think other stakeholders and arguably the broader community should be made aware of such a dispute earlier next time. Taking this as part of lessons learned and avoiding it in the future will benefit us, even as we move towards a decentralized governance model.


I have read all previous comments, and as an Incubator Contributor, I am adding my comments here because any decision made from this point directly impacts all Incubator Contributors and the value we add to Dash.


From the Incubator rules, which is public information, there are facts:

1. The Proposal Owner (PO) is the Admin user who creates Proposals to the Dash Network for and on behalf of the Incubator.

2. The PO role is intended to be a temporary role, until the Incubator can be implemented as a fully decentralized dApp in future, with Proposal Dash awarded to a Contract on Dash Platform and distributed autonomously using code.

3. 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.


Also, there are other facts:

4. Andy is the appointed PO of Incubator.

5. Andy transferred his PO duties to Rion.



Given the above facts, I believe this issue can be resolved amicably without any further drama.

First, I recognize that there is a standing consensus among Admins that Incubator should be implemented as a fully decentralized organization and the temporary PO role retired (as stated in the rules referenced in No. 2 above). I really do not understand why Rion decided not to honor this consensus (waiting to see his reasoning).

Secondly, Andy is the appointed PO of Incubator who transferred his DUTIES (not Role, not Appointment) to Rion. It is important we note that Andy was never voted out by >50% of Admins, per Incubator rules (referenced in No. 3 above) - he only transferred his duties to Rion. Going by the letter of the rules, Andy is still the appointed PO for Incubator.

Rion is a great guy and has done a great job so far taking on the PO duties. I appreciate his efforts and contributions to the success of Incubator and Dash. However, we CANNOT have a centralized governance model! NEVER!

Some of us have dedicated our time, skills, and efforts to making this crypto space work because we value the decentralization of power and control over our destinies.

If Rion won’t commit to the standing consensus for a switch to a decentralized governance model and work with other Admins to implement the plans as stated in the founding rules within which they all operate, I suggest we resolve this by having Andy continue in his appointed PO role and deliver on his promise to Incubator and the Dash Community — a fully decentralized Incubator governance model. That's what we were promised, that's what we signed up for, and that's what we want.


Thanks!
mayoreee

 

[AgnewPickens]

Hi all,

The who: I am one of the last few active Incubator Developers.

I just started following this conversation here, and it's rather unfortunate that things played out this way.

On the bright side, I hope Incubator Admins will take this as an important lesson - trying to resolve disputes with such high stakes internally for 9+ months without success wasn't a great idea. I think other stakeholders and arguably the broader community should be made aware of such a dispute earlier next time. Taking this as part of lessons learned and avoiding it in the future will benefit us, even as we move towards a decentralized governance model.


I have read all previous comments, and as an Incubator Contributor, I am adding my comments here because any decision made from this point directly impacts all Incubator Contributors and the value we add to Dash.


From the Incubator rules, which is public information, there are facts:

1. The Proposal Owner (PO) is the Admin user who creates Proposals to the Dash Network for and on behalf of the Incubator.

2. The PO role is intended to be a temporary role, until the Incubator can be implemented as a fully decentralized dApp in future, with Proposal Dash awarded to a Contract on Dash Platform and distributed autonomously using code.

3. 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.


Also, there are other facts:

4. Andy is the appointed PO of Incubator.

5. Andy transferred his PO duties to Rion.



Given the above facts, I believe this issue can be resolved amicably without any further drama.

First, I recognize that there is a standing consensus among Admins that Incubator should be implemented as a fully decentralized organization and the temporary PO role retired (as stated in the rules referenced in No. 2 above). I really do not understand why Rion decided not to honor this consensus (waiting to see his reasoning).

Secondly, Andy is the appointed PO of Incubator who transferred his DUTIES (not Role, not Appointment) to Rion. It is important we note that Andy was never voted out by >50% of Admins, per Incubator rules (referenced in No. 3 above) - he only transferred his duties to Rion. Going by the letter of the rules, Andy is still the appointed PO for Incubator.

Rion is a great guy and has done a great job so far taking on the PO duties. I appreciate his efforts and contributions to the success of Incubator and Dash. However, we CANNOT have a centralized governance model! NEVER!

Some of us have dedicated our time, skills, and efforts to making this crypto space work because we value the decentralization of power and control over our destinies.

If Rion won’t commit to the standing consensus for a switch to a decentralized governance model and work with other Admins to implement the plans as stated in the founding rules within which they all operate, I suggest we resolve this by having Andy continue in his appointed PO role and deliver on his promise to Incubator and the Dash Community — a fully decentralized Incubator governance model. That's what we were promised, that's what we signed up for, and that's what we want.


Thanks!
mayoreee

Sorry for the deletion, we have touchy spam filters on the Forum. Undeleted.

 

[mayoreee]

In addition to my previous comments, and for those who would like to understand why a decentralized governance model is so important to Incubator, below is an extract (text in purple) from Dash Marketing Hub’s (an official fork of Incubator) current proposal to the Network:

This proposal is a continuation of the Dash Marketing Hub, an official fork of the Dash Incubator, focused on grassroots marketing and promotion of Dash, and on community energizing/engagement.

This cycle we are continuing with the more decentralized leadership which replaced the initial single Proposal Owner role with the Director roles. Hub Directors at this time are myself (TheDesertLynx), Kanuuker, and Pozo, with one (myself) acting as a Treasurer (no change since last cycle). Full details on governance particulars can be found in our Rules document, with no changes since last cycle and changes since the previous cycle remaining highlighted in yellow.

Current Admins (in addition to the Directors who also act as Admins) remain unchanged and are GreekNick, Rion, whysmh4dash, and VVALTER_DASH.



Decentralized governance is not a choice. It’s the foundation upon which Incubator was built.

Dash Incubator Contributors do not work for any individual. Never!


Best,
mayoreee

 

[dkoedijk]

I proudly look back on being part of the team that prepared the Dash Marketing Hub for launch. Although I have not contributed much to it, I’m very happy to see that their evolved decentralized governance model has proven to be successful.

I believe that part of the reason for its success is that –following their improved rules, the Directors are bound and motivated to pursue a healthy continuation of its mission.

I fully agree with @mayoreee 's comments about the importance of decentralization and I hope the current conflict can be resolved quickly, so that (as apparently agreed among the admins) the new rules can be implemented as soon as possible.

Regarding the current vote, I’m not involved, i don’t know enough, and my opinion on it therefore doesn’t really matter. I’m somewhat confident though, that the Incubator’s admins will decide what’s best for the Incubator, themselves, their contributors (myself included) and most importantly, for Dash as a whole.

If this is not the case and the voting fails to resolve the dispute, I would like to call upon @AndyDark to (momentarily) return as an active admin, or as the appointed PO, and help steer the ship back on course.

Long Live The DAO!

Doeke

 

[vazaki3]

The rules are clear. "The Proposal Owner can be replaced through a vote where >50% of Admins vote for a new Admin to be the PO." There is no difference according to these rules between not voting and voting no.

Pardom me, but the rules are NOT clear. The rules are STUPID. And this is simply because (as you said) there is no difference between NOT voting and voting NO. It is highly irrational to accept such a stupid and vague rule, but a lot of us keep playing under the rule of this stupidity. Stupid people invent stupid rules, and even more stupid people obey and follow these rules.

This is not done by chance of course. It is within the context of the global war of the agents against the concept of the negative vote. Negative votes for candidates is banned worldwide. The agents do not allow not even a single place in the whole world to have negative votes for candidates, because they understand that in case this rational rule becomes viral, it may destroy their established world order.

Recently two enlightened dash community members boldly put proposals in the dash budget system asking negative votes for candidates [1] [2], but they did it in a wrong way (making the agents happy again). Because the negative poll for a candidate should not be a poll that lasts only one month. It should be a poll that is always active and never expires. And of course, as long as the negative poll for a candidate should be a vote that never expires, when a result is extracted from it it should not take into account old votes of inactive/dead community members, but only votes of the active members of the community. A voter's inactivity period should be defined in this poll, so that the old votes of the inactives/dead members of the community will be discarded when calculating the current tally.

 

[rion]

Without expressing any support or lack of support for either side, this is a fantastic example of what happens when substantive issues are not communicated to the Masternode community well. And well in advance. Let it not be so in the future if at all humanly possible.

If I had known these issues were substantive enough to warrant a rogue second Incubator proposal followed by a call for a proposal owner removal I might have brought it up publicly. I was not informed by anyone (neither Andy, nor any of the admins) that this action would be taken, or was even being considered.

 

[rion]

As a DAO voter, I am trying to sort out why the Yes-voting admins have requested this vote, it still seems a bit murky to me what this entire matter is about

I’m not sure if any of the four YES voters have answered you directly, but I am also interested to know specifics regarding this.

I would like to understand what specific privileges the Proposal Owner has that the Admins don't have. Is it a matter of who controls the Incubator funds? Are there any other privileges?

There are two objective and authoritative documents that define the proposal owner role:

• https://rules.dashincubator.app/ (specifically https://rules.dashincubator.app/#53-proposal-owner)
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JXkfUyuYpZ-MEzbcBmSOp7vN1k6O2vPiNA700Myc06o/edit#

It’s best that you refer to them directly to avoid interpretation bias from anyone explaining them.

The PO is the Admin user that other Admins elect to raise proposals to the Network, custodies the superblock rewards in a wallet, and then pays them out solely for rewards on Tasks that other Admins award via Trello.

It would be best to just refer Agnew to the governing documents, as I have above. There is only one reference to the word “elect” in our rules:

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.

Proposal owner “election” only takes place if/when a (proper) quorum of admins vote to replace the PO. Just thought I’d clarify for anyone interested.

It’s intended as a temporary position until the process to decentralise this across all Admins is finalised e.g. with a multi-sig wallet and a joint proposal from all Admins (which I know was being discussed and probably the cause of the issues here although its not my place to comment on that), and later using smart contracts (once implemented in the underlying protocol).

From the rules:

The PO role is intended to be a temporary role, until the Incubator can be implemented as a fully decentralized dApp in future, with Proposal Dash awarded to a Contract on Dash Platform and distributed autonomously using code.

Not saying I consider that statement and/or criteria to be ideal, but it’s clear that we’re nowhere near the point where the PO role is expected to be retired, at least according to the rules.

There were also some ‘super user’ privileges added later as a temporary measure / emergency powers, due to concerns about some gaps in the Rules

There are many “gaps in the Rules”, but until we fix them we live with them.

I will note that, though I know about the “powers” afforded to me as PO (emergency or otherwise), I have not used any of the controversial ones to date (e.g. removing admins). I’m being accused in many places in this thread of seeking power (presumably for power’s sake alone). Why have I not exercised such powers, as you did? Because I’ve sought to negotiate and compromise even through strong disagreement. If I’m accused of anything it should be that I’ve been too patient in these discussions. It has cost us. I hope the MNOs can forgive me.

 

[rion]

To clarify the Incubator Structure - we’re a flat system governed by Admins. Andy reserved himself a temporary super user role to enable him to resolve challenges during the phase of fast growth and handed this (PO) role to Rion last year (with the temporary super user clause still in the rules). Since October we’ve been in dispute over if this grants Rion the power to change the flat structure to a one at the top, beneficial dictator for life with him on top structure.

Terms like “flat system” and “one at the top, beneficial dictator for life with him on top structure” are sensational and ambiguous, but I’d be happy to respond to any specific rules that I’ve violated or specific PO responsibility concerns.

The relevant backstory here is that all this started with my proposal to restructure the Incubator for various positive reasons, none of which had anything to do with me wanting power for power’s sake. I will probably elaborate on this in a separate post, as it’s too much material to cover as I’m responding to existing comments.

In March, after 6 months of internal disagreement, on request from other Admins (and at risk of ongoing struggles spilling public) Andy stepped in to mediate a compromise that included taking Rion’s name off future Proposals and adopting a Governance Committee to decide how to take forward further changes and to share the PO responsibilities.

Taking my name off the proposal was not originally a goal (though it’s clear that it certainly has become such). It was something I first said/suggested I’d have to do if the Incubator continued in it’s current form (which I find has many flaws). Admins with egalitarian aspirations took this and ran with it, and made it the primary goal, leading to this vote.

We agreed this Network Proposal be posted under Dash Incubator with an intention for all Committee members to support it. Its production was tasked, reviewed and posted then withdrawn as a blank Placeholder Proposal had also been posted by Rion. It was a mistake to post the second Proposal while this topic was in conflict and without wider explanation to the Network, as was it for Rion to have posted his placeholder Proposal.

We agreed that we should further explore certain things. We never agreed on a timeline. We simply agreed to spec them out, and that if or when they were implemented it would be an acceptable compromise. We didn’t even get half way through specification, let alone start implementation. After initial scoping, I was the first one to accomplish my (one and only) task on the spec list (https://trello.com/c/KZY2U3kC/199-dash-incubator-restructure#comment-62902806b87de6608de26534). The rest did not fall into place, and even my task is being held up in QA.

 

[rion]

I am pretty sure Rion's budget proposal was created first and was initially not a blank Placeholder Proposal. It originally had full details as i remember, but was turned into a blank Placeholder Proposal after the second budget proposal emerged from DashIncubator that referenced this vote on the appointment of a new Dash Incubator Proposal Owner.

Rions budget proposal was posted first and was blank - with the exception of a few lines of placeholder text.

It was not blank on Dash Central. It had full details, including a reference to the previous budget proposal and that it was requesting now more dash then that previous budget proposal.

Just to clarify the proposal posting and editing timeline:

1. I originally posted the proposal on my normal schedule (with the intention to post a fairly typical proposal since the structural upgrades I’ve been proposing for multiple quarters continued to be blocked internally).
2. I quickly uploaded the summary paragraph that I usually start out with so that MNOs would at least have something to look at while I worked on the rest.
3. Because of the detail I wanted to post this quarter it was taking me longer than expected and I ran out of time for the evening so I just left a message saying I’d finish up tomorrow (I don’t recall the exact words).
4. I went to bed, then woke up to see a surprise second proposal from a new “DashIncubator” account which included a full proposal, fraudulently claiming to be the “updated” proposal, as if my original/official proposal didn’t exist, or was outdated.
5. I updated my intro text to clear things up since I was getting asked questions (e.g. “why are there two Incubator proposals”, etc)
6. I spend most of that day considering what the best approach would be, continuing to draft the proposal, talking with MNOs, etc.
7. I ran out of time again and posted some basic updates on the proposal and to Discord MNOs.
8. I woke up the next day and someone pointed me to this forum post, and here we are.

 

[rion]

As Sam has indicated above, for some time there has been a largely consensual attempt to do away with this centralised task (and I would make clear that I view it as a task like any other piece of work bountied by the Incubator as opposed to a 'role').

According to our rules, the proposal owner is a role, not a task.

Fund allocation and management is decentralized across Admin users who are incentivized with a percentage of the Dash they award on Bounties and a PO role responsible for fund management.

(https://rules.dashincubator.app/#1-dash-incubator)

Andy clarified (expanded?) the proposal owner responsibilities with the Proposal Owner Spec document to include proposal management, service management, and strategic management (in addition to fund management).

Again, Sam has suggested that the PO was only ever intended to be transient, and I can confirm that this is completely in line with the original intentions of Andy and myself in formulating the admin/governance system.

Yes, the the PO role was intended to remain “until the Incubator can be implemented as a fully decentralized dApp in future, with Proposal Dash awarded to a Contract on Dash Platform and distributed autonomously using code.”

When Rion first approached me with the idea of reforming the system to one in which more account was given to project management and strategy, I believed this to be a move in the right direction. However, I openly criticised the particular implementation, involving a 'lead strategist' at the pinnicle of the funding pyramid, as being reminiscent of a 'ponzi' scheme, and created a bounty for Rion to further explore and document his proposal. An 'alternative' proposal was created by Sam, which recognised that this hierarchy was out of keeping with the move towards structuring the Incubator as a DAO.

I was happy to see alternative suggestion. We tried negotiations to find a viable compromise, but have not achieved consensus. What we have achieved consensus on, we have not yet had time to specify or implement. I accomplished my task(s), but Sam wasn’t satisfied, hence the delay.

Other admins have indicated above that they largely support the current thinking on restructuring. It is simply a question of implementing the changes. It was clearly agreed that the first, very simple step, was for the network proposal to be developed and submitted collectively.

This is false. Changing the proposal name was not the first step, and was not intended to be a stand-alone change without other prerequisite/accompanying changes. To date, we aren’t even half way through specification, let alone implementation.

It was with some frustration that I noted that Rion was unwilling to do this and, with some regret, I drew the conclusion that this was further and final evidence that he is essentially unwilling to accept the agreed upon devolution, and that this does not bode well for the Incubator's future: potentially allowing, as Sam suggests, for the irreversible self-appointment of a 'benevolent dictator' and permissioned, centralised decision taking.

Sam and I were at an impasse. If I had been a “dictator” with “centralized decision taking” we would not still be in negotiations. I would have just made the decisions and moved on (which may very well have been for the best of the Incubator and Dash). Or, I would have just remove Sam and/or other admins (which is the purview of the proposal owner). What can we conclude from the fact that I have not taken these actions?

I will make clear that I neither had any involvement in submitting a second network proposal (which has now been recognised as an unfortunate error), nor initially mooted the idea of a vote to replace Rion with Sam as the PO, but I have no doubt from witnessing some months of discussion and interaction from a relative distance, that the future of the Incubator is most likely to move in the envisaged de-centralised direction with Sam taking over this responsibility in the short term.

Submitting the second proposal was not just “an unfortunate error”. It was a violation of Incubator rules. A motion to replace the PO is clearly allowed under the rules, but did basic decency not enter any minds here? No open discussion, not even a notification.

The question about the most appropriate level of (de)centralization is a big topic, one that is better done outside of this thread.

 

[rion]

I can corroborate the accounts stated by Sam Kirby. The last months have been a huge distraction for incubator and have made it hard to focus on its core mission and to serve the network, because of Rion's constant push that having his name on the proposal is not just fulfilling the PO role entrusted to him by Andy Freer, but the "Network voting directly for his proposal" and that therefore he must attain total control of the incubator and single handedly control every admin and the incubator budget.

A sensational characterization to say the least. I never claimed that I must attain total control of the incubator and single handedly control every admin and the incubator budget. I wonder if anyone can take this claim seriously. I’m trying to do the exact opposite for the wider Dash ecosystem (I’m aiming for more decentralization in Dash, not less).

It would be a positive outcome for the incubator to have a yes vote on the PO transfer so we can finish the transition and implement the governance process that was already agreed upon and approved by everyone involved at the incubator.

Nothing was agreed upon other than moving to specify the details. That’s where we got held up, and remain to this day.

 

[rion]

At this point i am glad this is done on a public Dash forum, for all to see and not behind some closed doors. There is something to say for transparency.
And i am not so much trying to sway votes or influence the process, i just like to see this kept a fair process. Which it looks like it is now.

Indeed. That’s one nice thing that has come out of this, though it didn’t have to take this form (a surprise vote to replace the PO).

 

[rion]

I will keep this brief; Rion had agreed to move towards a dedicated group posting the proposals and a transition to a more decentralized incubator leadership model, his posting of a proposal in his name is reneging on that - whatever the reason.

No such agreement was made. We agreed to work towards specifying the details, which got mired in disagreements. The timing of the change was never indicated or agreed. There were prerequisites.

The Trust Protectors act as 6 with majority voting
The Dash Investment Foundation Supervisors act as 6 with majority voting
The Dash Incubator acts as Rion who has made threats historically to remove admins to ensure his vision is enacted. I respect Rion but this isn't the way this should be done and saying the 'DAO' sits above the incubator is a cop-out as we know how slowly DAO governance runs and would be completely ineffectual in running the incubator.

The Dash Incubator is governed by our Rules, and I, as PO, follow the PO specification, which I’ve done without any violation as far as I'm concerned (strategic managment item 6 being in progress). I made no threats, I simply informed everyone of the rules since it seemed clear that not everyone understood them. I didn’t make these rules. I don’t like them for the most part. Changing them is very difficult though, as we’ve seen.

As for the “cop out” claim. I’d be happy to debate you (or Sam, or anyone) about that.

I don't think this is healthy for the incubator or healthy for Dash. I'm sure there is reasons WHY the transition towards a decentralized supervisor model hasn't materialized but this seems a step towards that for me. Hence my vote; Yes.

Decentralization was not the purpose. Increase the value we’re proving to Dash was (is). It seems that decentralization very quickly became the goal for several of you, however. Value is my goal. Too much decentralization in the wrong places can actually harm that goal.

Why is what you personally think is healthy for the Incubator or Dash any more valid than what I think?