Foundation Structure Proposal Election Voting History - Call For A Community Audit
The election of a Structure Proposal for The Community Foundation ended today (April 24th) at 9pm utc. The following is the full and open vote history for auditing purposes.
We want to give a very big thank you to @emrebeyler and @dpoll for helping in this process. From implementing personalized filters to quickly integrating keychain into the dpoll interface, per the community's request. He has been vital in providing that this election go as smooth as possible, while insuring that full transparency is achieved.
The below audit information was pulled from the dpoll interface.
We ask that the community help to review the results.
Audit Page:
https://dpoll.xyz/detail/@steemalliance/steem-alliance-structure-proposal-election/?audit=1
The audit page includes a detailed look at every vote cast, as well as information about the account that cast said vote. Please see above link for full voting history.
.png)
as well as the API Endpoint for the poll details:
https://dpoll.xyz/api/v1/questions/steemalliance/?permlink=steem-alliance-structure-proposal-election
Current Results (Not official until after audit is completed)
.png)
Once results have been properly checked and audited, the official announcement of the community chosen Structure Proposal will be posted on this blog.
Then this account, as well as the Steem Alliance Discord Server, will be handed over to the community foundation to begin the building process.
Thank you,
The Working Group
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.
488 votes in total? With several voters double voting. OK, it's not a lot yet everybody had a chance to vote.
What I find a bit odd it that non-personal votes are in the bag too. Like sbi*, for example.
OK, you could say that, somewhere along the line, there is a real person behind every functional account :)
Good work!
It's a stake-based vote, so voting multiple is the same as just voting. We voted all our accounts because we believe this matters to Steem.
Edit: reading down, I realize that you meant we posted on two selections each time. We analyzed the proposals and marked the ones that we thought were most likely to succeed. If it had a better than 50% shot we voted for it.
Because this was a vote being weighed by stake, not one vote one person (reflecting the DPoS governance model of Steem) individuals were told they could vote with as many accounts as they wanted.
Many users have their stake spread out over multiple accounts, and therefore had to vote with many to be counted. Only “owned” stake, not delegated, was weighed so accounts that are seen as more “non personal” still have their own stake, and a person working behind the project.
All these votes are fair and were explained from the beginning as such.
As far as the turnout, yeah I wish it was higher.
But everyone was “allowed” to vote, they were encouraged, it was trending, pinned by Steemit Inc. and many other things. There was no roar from the community about not wanting to support it, so I believe the number still shows consensus on those paying attention. We also have nothing to compare the number to, as we have never done anything like this before.
Some people didn’t understand it enough, as it was a quite technical decision, and they just didn’t see how they could give input. Some only use the site to blog and just don’t pay too much attention to anything else. Some will just never care enough to get involved and only will complain, or my favorite in this situation “I’m not voting because there aren’t enough people voting so it doesn’t make sense.” 🙂
We can’t force people to care.
I think it’s pretty amazing that over 400 active people on this platform do care enough to pay attention to this very long and somewhat confusing process and actually showed up to have their voices heard.
Others will just show up to upvote comments that are somewhat critical or to bash the whole thing as they didn’t like something about it, rather than get involved to try to fix anything. That’s just the world we live in... the doers will keep doing.. the rest will either benefit from the work done or find something else to complain about.
Either way, I think this is the start of something beneficial for the community and I’m glad we have so many that see that and care enough to show up. 🙂
I didn't bother voting since it was quite obvious to me that the merger proposal will win. I have suspected from the start that those who are in the merger proposal are going to win this and make it look like a "fair" voting.
They were the people communicating with Steem Inc about making a foundation even before the broader community learned about it.
There was only two choices. The other three were impractical. And the second choice appeared to lack specifics about implementation. Which left only one choice. All in all, it sounded like a controlled election to me.
I have actually voted very late and - after voting - reloaded the page to find 482 votes.
I didn't expect such a low number actually.
Mr. SBI likes to vote. Ain't nutin wrong wit dat. Some accounts remained neutral, ain't nutin wrong wit dat either.
It seems most users don't care. Services that voted have passion. I would be more interested in hearing why others I support didn't care to vote. Obviously some like steemit and steemalliance cannot. Others maybe had membership reasons etc. It was their choice.
With double vote I mean that an account voted for two different choices at the same time, of course.
Since it was possible to do so it's OK, I guess 😀
Posted using Partiko Android
Sorry yeah i came to realize that.
You are right participation was dismal.
Most people are here for casual reasons, to make a quick buck, pessimistic about the proposal or want to remain neutral. I Voted 3 myself. I think because of stake based voting alts arent a big deal, but remove those and service accounts and its even lower.
Posted using Partiko Android
Maybe people are not used to vote FOR something?
With the elections in politics, when you vote at all, you vote AGAINST somebody 😀
Posted using Partiko Android
371 wow...
The block chain is safu! phew 😅
Posted using Partiko Android
Great work, and thanks to the WG!
So few voted must be a bit disappointing, it's a pity that not more people appreciated the efforts, especially taking the importance of the entire undertaking for the future of Steem into consideration.
Don't let yourselves get discouraged by that, though. The major part is still ahead of you (and us) :-) and the ones who didn't care this time might do so next time after seeing that it actually makes a difference.
Posted using Partiko Android
Personally, I don't think that many people have a strong opinion on the structure of a Foundation or Non-Profit. Where it will get interesting is as it supports projects.
Hmmm I could’ve sworn my vote for the merger said it was accepted but I don’t see my name ? I’m perplexed
Posted using Partiko iOS
I don’t see you on the vote post at all? I’ll have emre check first thing in the am, but I’m not seeing a vote at all unfortunately. 😕
Yea likewise, dunno 🤷🏽♂️ oh well
Posted using Partiko iOS
take out the vegetarian's and vegan's, think 'survive by eating each other' still would have won.
hey, @steemalliance.
It looks like the process here is moving forward, and I think it's commendable that you have been involving the community in many steps of the process as practical and as wanted. It's a bit like herding cats, from what I can tell, but I for one believe the community has been given opportunities at different points to participate, and regardless of the outcomes, I am willing to say to date, that you folks have been trying to be transparent, and while there's been some bumps and bruises, you're doing what you can to bring a decentralized and rather unruly bunch to some kind of consensus, along with trying to build something meant to benefit everyone. Still early, still lots of work, but for what it's worth, I applaud your efforts thus far.
So, thanks for that. :)
Congratulations @steemalliance! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPVote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Whatever the result is, I and my community behind me will support it. 🇵🇭💪
Posted using Partiko iOS