Dash Incubator: Vote on Appointment of new Proposal Owner

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
Hi there.

A group of Admins from Dash Incubator have approached me and asked me to mediate a vote on appointing a new Proposal Owner for Dash Incubator. As i'm familiar with the Rules which govern this process (from writing them), i've agreed to create this thread to present the Vote and collect the results.

Rules
As per Section 5.3 of the Rules (which represent the contract with the Dash Network that each Incubator proposal agrees to implement)

"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."

Vote Details

VoteAppointment of Sam Kirby (samkirby22) as the new Dash Incubator Proposal Owner effective immediately
Admins initiating the voteAsh Francis, Cloudwheels, Dashameter, Sam Kirby
Admin "Yes" votes required for quorum decision for the vote to pass6/11
Vote OptionsYes / No / Abstain
Vote closesVotes will be tallied in 2 Weeks (by 00:00 UTC on 26th July)

Results
Results of the votes are as follows... Admins please state/confirm your votes that i'm listing in the thread below.

Admin NameTrello UsernameVote Cast
Ash FrancisashfrancisYes
CloudwheelscloudwheelsYes
DashameterdashameterYes
Sam Kirbysamkirby22Yes
HilawehilaweNo
Ivan ShumkovshumieAbstain
PastapastapastapastaNo
Quantum ExplorerquantumexplorerAbstain
riongullriongullNo
Tim MunsellSpectaprodNo
Wiz Leewizlee3No

Note that the list of Admins eligible to vote is determined by the users with Admin rights on the Incubator's Trello board which is how users exercise Admin functions in Incubator:
incubator-admins.png


Thanks
Andy Freer
 
Last edited:

Sam Kirby

New Member
Jun 14, 2022
6
1
3
38
I support this and will be looking to implement a managed transition to the governance committee format of leadership already proposed and accepted. This will give the engagement and autonomy of all senior Incubator members necessary to drive the focus and accountability the dash community rightly expect of us.
 

dashameter

New Member
Jan 31, 2018
12
7
3
52
github.com
Voted yes as this will accelerate the transition to more accountability and unleash the potential of the incubator to serve the network more effectively.
 

cloudwheels

New Member
Jul 12, 2022
3
0
1
49
I can confirm my vote as YES in anticipation of accelerating the move to a more democratic and devolved Incubator governance structure.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,831
991
183
This whole voting on a new proposal owner has very bad timing, specially with Rion's Dash Incubator budget proposal (https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3) already active on the network and receiving votes. Then there is also a competing Dash Incubator budget proposal from 'Dashincubator' that is not being acknowledged by Rion (Dash Incubator Proposal Owner) and is causing a lot of confusion (this one : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3-updated), as it not only request funding for a different amount of Dash (600 dash instead of 900 dash) , but by now is also requesting to hold any voting on both budget proposals, untill this vote on the appointment of a new proposal owner concludes (which could take a week !!).

This all seems very rushed and badly communicated internally. It also feels like an internal Dash Incubator coup, the way this is being played out currently.
Why is this played out this way ? Why does Rion needs to be replaced by Sam Kirby as new Proposal Owner of Dash Incubator this urgently, that it actually interferes with the Dash Incubator budget proposal (s) ?

I decided to vote NO on the following budget proposal, as i don't like how this has been played out : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3-updated
I also decided to wait with voting on Rion's budget proposal, untill he updated his proposal text to provide us with more clarity (he indicated that should be visible the next couple of days).

Comment from Rion in his budget proposal text :


Source : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-incubator-2022-q3

Also a warning : i have a strong dislike for powergames, which reflects on how i vote. If Rion gets replaced by Sam Kirby as new Proposal Owner for Dash Incubator without a sufficient explanation to the Dash community or to the Dash masternode operators on why this is necessary and why there is such urgency to it, i will feel forced to withdraw my support for future Dash Incubator budget proposals.
 
Last edited:

QuantumExplorer

Active Member
Dash Core Group
Aug 20, 2014
129
172
93
@AndyDark I believe that the spirit of 50% of admins more means 50% of voting admins. I had already expressed doubt about me, Ivan and Pasta voting on internal Incubator direction, as it can lead to conflicts of interest. It is good that we are admins there as it allows us greater cooperation but voting on such a thing makes me uncomfortable because I do not know the underlying reasons why these admins want this change.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,831
991
183
@AndyDark : what is the point of having a Dash Incubator Proposal Owner formally appointed, when Dash Incubator admins can just hide behind a group identity like 'DashIncubator' and create their own Dash Incubator budget proposals ? How will masternode operators know that such a budget proposal comes from the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner ?

In this situation it became pretty clear early on because two competing Dash Incubator budget proposals emerged, one claimed by Rion (the officially appointed Dash Incubator Proposal Owner) and one claimed by 'DashIncubator', a Dash Incubator admin who apparently does not have the right to issue such a budget proposal in the first place as he is not the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner ? At least i hope he does not have that right, or all Dash Incubator admins can do what happened yesterday and just create a Dash Incubator budget proposal of their own. Which could get really messy.

This will need to be corrected in the future. For transparency. Whoever creates Dash Incubator budget proposals need to do it under their own name, so masternode operators can verify if this is coming from the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner or not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rion and xkcd

rion

Member
Aug 26, 2016
70
67
58
Obviously my vote is no.

I wish I could give an update to my proposal text and comment on this new development (vote to replace me) before I end my day, but summarizing a 9-month long discussion/debate was too much for the time I had today. I'll continue to work on it tomorrow.

I would ask other admins to please hold off voting until I've had a chance to speak with them and/or update my proposal text.

Also, there is no specification that I'm aware regarding the duration of this vote. If 1 week is to be chosen (which itself seems controversial), then it should at least last that long, not when a quorum is reached. This would allow time for admins to possibly change votes as some MNOs do in our main voting system. As it stands, I could go to sleep tonight and wake up with a closed vote without even having had a chance to talk to any admins. This is being rushed for some reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: solarguy

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
392
365
133
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
Also a warning : i have a strong dislike for powergames, which reflects on how i vote. If Rion gets replaced by Sam Kirby as new Proposal Owner for Dash Incubator without a sufficient explanation to the Dash community or to the Dash masternode operators on why this is necessary and why there is such urgency to it, i will feel forced to withdraw my support for future Dash Incubator budget proposals.
I agree, which is why I am voting NO on both proposals.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
Obviously my vote is no.

I wish I could give an update to my proposal text and comment on this new development (vote to replace me) before I end my day, but summarizing a 9-month long discussion/debate was too much for the time I had today. I'll continue to work on it tomorrow.

I would ask other admins to please hold off voting until I've had a chance to speak with them and/or update my proposal text.

Also, there is no specification that I'm aware regarding the duration of this vote. If 1 week is to be chosen (which itself seems controversial), then it should at least last that long, not when a quorum is reached. This would allow time for admins to possibly change votes as some MNOs do in our main voting system. As it stands, I could go to sleep tonight and wake up with a closed vote without even having had a chance to talk to any admins. This is being rushed for some reason.
Please don't bring this issue into the Incubator proposal. You're responsibility as PO is to represent the interests of the Incubator and raise funding for the Admins in Proposals, not use them as a platform to lobby to the MNO network about internal Incubator governance.

I agree it was a mistake for these Admins to raise a second proposal and I advised they remove it, but from the call I joined after the last proposal, you did agree to go with their decentralisation plan and raise a joint proposal with the other Admins this cycle, not raise it unilaterally, but you did that anyway (not sure why)

Either way, there's 2 issues here: Proposal in the cycle from Rion (which is valid and by the Rules, the second one isn't) and this Incubator governance-decision vote (which is also valid and by the Rules), so please lets keep them separate.
 
Last edited:

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
Obviously my vote is no.

I wish I could give an update to my proposal text and comment on this new development (vote to replace me) before I end my day, but summarizing a 9-month long discussion/debate was too much for the time I had today. I'll continue to work on it tomorrow.

I would ask other admins to please hold off voting until I've had a chance to speak with them and/or update my proposal text.

Also, there is no specification that I'm aware regarding the duration of this vote. If 1 week is to be chosen (which itself seems controversial), then it should at least last that long, not when a quorum is reached. This would allow time for admins to possibly change votes as some MNOs do in our main voting system. As it stands, I could go to sleep tonight and wake up with a closed vote without even having had a chance to talk to any admins. This is being rushed for some reason.
I've changed the vote time limit to 2 weeks, and we tally votes at that time.

"Votes will be tallied in 2 Weeks (by 00:00 UTC on 26th July)"

That way, whatever happens with this vote, it doesn't affect the current Proposal raised by Rion within this cycle.

Andy
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
@AndyDark I believe that the spirit of 50% of admins more means 50% of voting admins. I had already expressed doubt about me, Ivan and Pasta voting on internal Incubator direction, as it can lead to conflicts of interest. It is good that we are admins there as it allows us greater cooperation but voting on such a thing makes me uncomfortable because I do not know the underlying reasons why these admins want this change.
Ok, yes you did say this before. I've removed you from the Quorum tally. If Pasta and Shumkov want the same that's fine.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
Hello! I wish the best to Incubator, but such as @QuantumExplorer, I don't feel I should be a part of this decision. Especially, I don't know the reasoning and consequences.
Hey man! Sure no problem. I've removed you from the quorum tally too. If you change your mind, there's 2 weeks until the tally is taken.

Andy
 

Sam Kirby

New Member
Jun 14, 2022
6
1
3
38
@qwizzie
I understand and appreciate your Proposal concerns and at the timing/urgency of this vote. Posting two Proposals was a mistake and the second has now been withdrawn as a result. Any future Proposal will include a sufficient explanation that clarifies how that happened and why this vote was necessary.

All Incubator Admins are extremely passionate community members who want the best for Dash and Incubator. Although we try our best to keep disputes like this under wraps, due to the nature of an ever evolving (striving to be) decentralised autonomous organization, we failed on this occasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudwheels

rion

Member
Aug 26, 2016
70
67
58
Note that according to the current rules…

"The Proposal Owner can be replaced through a vote where >50% of Admins vote for a new Admin to be the PO."
…the number of votes required to change the PO is based on total admin count (currently 11), not the voting admin count.
 

spectaprod

New Member
Jul 14, 2022
2
1
3
44
I vote NO, because I don’t think this is the best way to usher in the changes (most of which I like).
 
  • Like
Reactions: rion

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
Note that according to the current rules…



…the number of votes required to change the PO is based on total admin count (currently 11), not the voting admin count.
The intention there is to take a decision of Admins with a stake in the governance. As QE said DCG Admins have COI and don’t want to be counted (which is the de facto situation on internal decision tallies since they joined). If we take your interpretation using terms you've added in, it's going to be practically impossible to ever change the PO role which is obviously not in the spirit of the rules.

Plus if we just take the literal interpretation of the rules you were never voted into the PO slot in the first place as is required, meaning all of this is mute ...obviously the de facto situation is the other Admins accepted you're informal appointment as PO which is what matters.

I think the best thing here is we allow the Admins with the stake to vote in the way we all know the system is supposed to work which is 8 people, 6 of whom have voted now and 2 to go… lets allow this to play out fairly and keep Incubator true to its principles so the people with the stake can appoint who they want in the PO role and keep Incubator decentralized.
 
Last edited:

spectaprod

New Member
Jul 14, 2022
2
1
3
44
I vote NO, because I don’t think this is the best way to usher in the changes (most of which I like).
I should add that my vote is my preference on this specific question, not a vote of confidence (or lack of) in the structure the incubator is working to adopt.
 

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
I should add that my vote is my preference on this specific question, not a vote of confidence (or lack of) in the structure the incubator is working to adopt.
Hey Specta. Understood, thanks... i've added your vote as a 'No' in the results table.
 

solarguy

Active Member
Mar 15, 2017
890
463
133
62
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.
 

Hilawe

New Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 24, 2017
20
20
3
Hi Andy, please add me as a "No". I also echo Spectrapod's statement

EDIT:

Clarifying that I agree with Spectrapod that I don't have major issues with the structure being proposed but I do have grave concerns with rather how things were conducted recently, proposal-wise. This should be addressed further internally IMO before any other major decisions are made, therefore voting "No".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rion

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
Hi Andy, please add me as a "No". I also echo Spectrapod's statement

EDIT:

Clarifying that I agree with Spectrapod that I don't have major issues with the structure being proposed but I do have grave concerns with rather how things were conducted recently, proposal-wise. This should be addressed further internally IMO before any other major decisions are made, therefore voting "No".
Hi Hilawe - ok i've added your vote.

Andy
 

AgnewPickens

Administrator
Dash Core Group
Chief Sock Advisor
Mar 11, 2017
582
282
133
58
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?

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, and the Incubator has a pending funding request, would like further explanation of the reasons for a public vote
on the Forum for this, if there are problems with the current Proposal Owner, and since the vote is now public on the Forum, those need
to be disclosed so DAO voters can decide how they wish to proceed.

Can we get some of the Yes voters to clarify this issue so that DAO voters are better informed ahead of another funding decision?
 
Last edited:

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
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?
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’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).

There were also some ‘super user’ privileges added later as a temporary measure / emergency powers, due to concerns about some gaps in the Rules, e.g. there’s no limits defined on spending so any Admin can technically spend any amount of the budget (on Tasks they set and approve the Output of) and the plan was to remove these once the way to decentralize this across Admins was worked out via the Rules.

All of these PO rights are detailed in Section 5.3 Proposal Owner of the Incubator Rules.
 

AgnewPickens

Administrator
Dash Core Group
Chief Sock Advisor
Mar 11, 2017
582
282
133
58
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’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).

There were also some ‘super user’ privileges added later as a temporary measure / emergency powers, due to concerns about some gaps in the Rules, e.g. there’s no limits defined on spending so any Admin can technically spend any amount of the budget (on Tasks they set and approve the Output of) and the plan was to remove these once the way to decentralize this across Admins was worked out via the Rules.

All of these PO rights are detailed in Section 5.3 Proposal Owner of the Incubator Rules.

Multi sig was never mentioned before your comment, I am not against that, but I AM unhappy how this has been presented to the Network.

Why wasn't multi sig brought up as its own issue instead of this drama during the depths of a bear market. Do you understand the position
this puts DAO voters in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rion

AndyDark

Well-known Member
Sep 10, 2014
384
728
163
Multi sig was never mentioned before your comment, I am not against that, but I AM unhappy how this has been presented to the Network.

Why wasn't multi sig brought up as its own issue instead of this drama during the depths of a bear market. Do you understand the position
this puts DAO voters in?
Right now there's nothing here of relevance to the current proposal cycle, this is an internal Incubator governance vote that's as yet undecided... Rion will be Incubator PO for this cycle regardless of the outcome: Without a Rule change reflecting the move to a shared proposal, the Admins raising this vote shouldn't have raised any proposal (which they've withdrawn now anyway) and Rion's proposal should be going ahead as normal and not referencing this vote as it's outcome would only take affect next cycle...if it does MNOs can vote on this then by voting on the next proposal that's raised.
 
Last edited:

Sam Kirby

New Member
Jun 14, 2022
6
1
3
38
Hi all, Some background. I’ve been an Incubator Admin for 18months, run the majority of active bounties including Jembe and Patreon, highest spending bounties Platform Issues and QA and am the most active Admin over the last 18months. I have a strong working relationship with the Platform team having led for a year a weekly triage with Incubator, DCG and the Community. I’m extremely passionate about the potential for Incubator and Dash and strongly believe in Andy’s vision for how that should be executed.

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.

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.

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.

Rion's reluctance to give up super-user responsibilities, accept a governance committee until working under a neutral Proposal coupled with an unwillingness to post a neutral Proposal keeps this cycle of uncertainty going on indefinitely. I was asked by Admins supporting this vote to manage this transition and I’m happy to take that on if it allows us to finally move forward. Although I'm happy to write future Network proposals, I have no desire to take up a full PO position. I would rather work with others deciding, implementing changes and agreeing how best to provide the detail our MNO voters are asking for. The incubator is a flat organization and should remain that way until our best efforts prove that a better system is needed. Those best efforts are far from being met. If Andy stepping back in permanently or until we're working to our compromise becomes an option, this is something I’d also be happy to support.

(withdrawn) network Proposal FYI: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yj_IaahForTT8BrWnyaXnFr8k64Ww3ad_qxoPif5tS4/edit#
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,831
991
183
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.

(withdrawn) network Proposal FYI: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yj_IaahForTT8BrWnyaXnFr8k64Ww3ad_qxoPif5tS4/edit#
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.

We agreed this Network Proposal be posted under Dash Incubator with an intention for all Committee members to support it
I am also curious about the 'We', were all 11 admins in full agreement here ?

Also i have difficulty understanding how the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner can be set aside like that by other admins. Should the procedure not be to first select a new Dash Incubator Proposal Owner (by internally organising a vote), before making budget proposals under the DashIncubator name ? (which by the way obscures if the budget proposal in question is coming from the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner or not, so as a masternode owner that votes on budget proposals i am not a fan of this).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rion

Sam Kirby

New Member
Jun 14, 2022
6
1
3
38
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.



I am also curious about the 'We', were all 11 admins in full agreement here ?

Also i have difficulty understanding how the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner can be set aside like that by other admins. Should the procedure not be to first select a new Dash Incubator Proposal Owner (by internally organising a vote), before making budget proposals under the DashIncubator name ? (which by the way obscures if the budget proposal in question is coming from the Dash Incubator Proposal Owner or not, so as a masternode owner that votes on budget proposals i am not a fan of this).
Rions budget proposal was posted first and was blank - with the exception of a few lines of placeholder text.

We in this instance stands for the Incubator Governance Committee - at the time this agreement was in place, this committee was all Admins. Voting was not explicitly held in this instance as consensus was reached without objection - including budget proposals under the DashIncubator name.