You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Foundation Structure Proposal Election Voting History - Call For A Community Audit
Will there be an accept/reject round for the winner of this round?
Given that this round had no option to vote "none of the above", given the low turn out (both in accounts voting and vests) and given not everybody might have caught the possibility of voting without needing to expose our active key to SteemConnect, doing an accept/reject round for the winner would seem the logical next step for credability sake.
There is no “winner” it’s an idea that will then be used to start to build a voluntary community foundation.
It’s not governance and the foundation will not make changes to the chain. If someone doesn’t like the idea, or the future foundation.. then they can just ignore it, as it won’t directly affect them or how they use the chain.
People have had over 3mths to learn about it, get involved, give input or let their concerns be heard. The information has been pinned on the main page, trending, talked about in almost every discord channel and had hundreds of posts written about it. Those that cared, showed up.
The accept/reject phase was this whole entire process.
It’s now time to move forward.
If I remember correctly, I asked for a "none of the above option" to be added to the vote. I was told that there was no need for it as those who didn't support any of the proposals could simply not vote.
So 99% of the monthly active steemians didn't vote. So by the working groups own standards this
cannot be called a community lead effort. If a community lead process was what @ned had in mind when this whole process started, then I would suggest a 99% no turnout should be taken as a rejection of this process
My take is a bit different. As a long time Dev and infosec expert who wants to contribute to the STEEM ecosystem, I'dd be happy to prioritize my work counter to any financial insentives according to priorities set by a community initiative if I'dd believe that initiative indeed carried the voice of the community.
There currently three aspects of the STEEM Alliance that make me doubt the Alliance could be able to be the voice of the community. Two of them relating to this voting round.
The first aspect, that was already attenuated by the recent update of dpoll was the fact that at poll start, the only way to vote in a stake based way required the exposure of the users active key to SteemConnect. This was fixed mid voting, so it possibly might have been missed by security aware and high stake account holders who would otherwise have voted.
A second issue with this voting round: There was no way to vote for people who thought neither of the proposals was good enough, other than not to vote. There was no "they all suck" option.
Both these issues can be easily fixed: run a two choices poll. Accept the top proposal or reject it. Running that second poll will show the world and independent devs that Steem Aliance aims to be the voice of the community and as such is someone we can talk business with.
The third issue with Steem Aliance, and an issue that while not directly addressed in this vote has aspects in the proposals that would be attenuated by community support for the proposal, is the issue of Steemit Inc indépendance un terms of voice. If the community. If I'dd prioritize a hundred hours listening to priorities set by a community initiative, I'dd like to know I'm actually doing the community's bidding as community volunteer, not working as an underpaid contracter for Steemit Inc.