Then perhaps Core should consider the significant number of no votes on both sides, use their discretion and void both submissions.
Proposal: Visual Identity - Tharp & Clark
- Thread starter glennaustin
- Start date
Well... I personally was very surprised and disappointed by the fact that new vote rules were introduced - IMO rules should not be changed on a per proposal basis unless there is a clear mechanism for this built into the system (and we don't have one). Otherwise what stops me from creating a proposal which "passes" if it was downvoted to say less then 10% (i.e. yes - no > -10%) like "Not so many people disliked it, so it's fine" rule? This doesn't work this way, rules are called rules for a reason. The one we have in place basically says "You need non-negligibly more people who support changes than people who oppose them for changes to be applied". Deviating from this to a "simple majority with enough votes" is not just about the way you count votes, it's a conceptual shift and I don't think that any proposal owner have such power, being from Core or not.
This being said, with new rules (manually) defined within these 2 proposals I see them only as a poll, as a primaries in a NewLogo party between two candidates, so to say, which has no real power over the network. If we are going to "adopt" the new logo based on these results, to me, this will be an abuse of the governance system, so don't expect me to merge anything like that into Dash Core wallet. My understanding is that the winner of the "primaries" (T&C) should now apply final tweaks and finish all formal task etc. and then they should present full final pack (together with someone from Core?) in a new proposal. This final proposal _must_ pass with 10% majority vote for changes to be applied. If not - status quo _must_ be preserved.
That would be fair though regardless of the acceptance of the logo/style they proposed by the network imo. It was not a freelance competition for a prize afaik, they had some work done and they should be paid.
demo
Well-known member
Why an unvoted status quo must be preserved? Who decided that?
Will you fund the below governance question?
JOL
Active member
I can only speak for me, and yes your point of view is interesting.
Your arguments and your analysis of the situation seems correct on the most points.
About :
I'm not sure I understood. We should pay for unsolicited work not voted for, by the DAO? why?
This is an interesting situation and is not a problem. We are in an organization that is being built and we are learning. Creating is always a long and messy process.
Your arguments and your analysis of the situation seems correct on the most points.
About :
I'm not sure I understood. We should pay for unsolicited work not voted for, by the DAO? why?
This is an interesting situation and is not a problem. We are in an organization that is being built and we are learning. Creating is always a long and messy process.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
JGCMiner
Active member
@fernando
If my reading of the funding proposal just posted by Glenn is correct (https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Core-Team-Tharp-and-Clark-0518) then if that proposal does not pass then the money owed to T & C will be paid from Core’s marketing budget using funds that may have been earmarked for other projects.
That implies, to me at least, that we will be using the T & C logo regardless of if the proposal passes — and thus essentially, this funding proposal just determines what budget will pay T & C, Core’s or the DAO’s May allotment. Is this correct? And if it is, how does that square with @UdjinM6 ’s concerns posted above?
It is quite the serious statement to say that this new logo won’t be merged into the core wallet software without a supermajority vote on record. Has this been worked out between core members or is there a lingering issue that the community needs to be made aware of?
Thanks.
If my reading of the funding proposal just posted by Glenn is correct (https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Core-Team-Tharp-and-Clark-0518) then if that proposal does not pass then the money owed to T & C will be paid from Core’s marketing budget using funds that may have been earmarked for other projects.
That implies, to me at least, that we will be using the T & C logo regardless of if the proposal passes — and thus essentially, this funding proposal just determines what budget will pay T & C, Core’s or the DAO’s May allotment. Is this correct? And if it is, how does that square with @UdjinM6 ’s concerns posted above?
It is quite the serious statement to say that this new logo won’t be merged into the core wallet software without a supermajority vote on record. Has this been worked out between core members or is there a lingering issue that the community needs to be made aware of?
Thanks.
@TroyDASH
Yep, and there were two parties (employees) who tried to ask MNOs (employer) to decide who is right and who is wrong. Eventually these two parties came to a decision that satisfied both, so MNOs had no need to judge. The situation we have right now is that there is a proposer (employee) who changed the governance rules (the way changes are accepted) on his own. He is now trying to push these results as a legit governance decision for the whole network (employer and other employees). That's not ok.
@JGCMiner
I haven't changed my mind, see my new post there https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-core-team-tharp-and-clark-0518.36370/#post-182328
The new proposal is simply about paying the winner of the poll to finish the job, I see neither this one (the poll) nor the new one (the reimbursement) as a governance proposal.
Yep, and there were two parties (employees) who tried to ask MNOs (employer) to decide who is right and who is wrong. Eventually these two parties came to a decision that satisfied both, so MNOs had no need to judge. The situation we have right now is that there is a proposer (employee) who changed the governance rules (the way changes are accepted) on his own. He is now trying to push these results as a legit governance decision for the whole network (employer and other employees). That's not ok.
@JGCMiner
I haven't changed my mind, see my new post there https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-core-team-tharp-and-clark-0518.36370/#post-182328
The new proposal is simply about paying the winner of the poll to finish the job, I see neither this one (the poll) nor the new one (the reimbursement) as a governance proposal.
Last edited: