Let’s at least discuss this if it were anyone or any vote, not personally pertaining to council and the situation.
Then we can also dive into the situation. I think it’s important we have discourse on this since it hasn’t occurred before and to set a precedent for the future
Punish me daddy cough I mean I am truly sorry for my actions and I was compelled by Detriti and her madness to publish this vote outside our ordinary forums. May Agora have mercy on my soul.
Since there weren’t any rules around this to begin with, I’m going to vote no punishment. That being said, as hilarious as this is, it probably sets a bad precedent.
Simple rule suggestion: A thumbs up from 3 conclave reps before a proposal goes to vote…OR ELSE. Removing wallet permissions seems appropriate.
I’m going to vote Yes to set the precedent but I think the punishment should be nothing more than a warning. We’re all learning how to work together and Detriti’s madness does have quite the pull.
We should also discuss whether the results of the vote will dictate Conclave actions – I vote No because of both the governance breach and I think any use of a key resource like the Amalgam should require deeper conversation.
I admire Brennen’s approach to things; his boldness in decision making leads to very effective action. However, I do believe that respecting the structure of governance is incredibly important as well.
I don’t believe punishment is necessary and in general most successful disciplinary processes require a verbal warning as the first step either way.
I would recommend as conclave representatives we come up with a statement to make which we all agree on. I would put forward the following as points which we should make in our statement:
The conclave representatives nor the community were aware of, discussed, or agreed to this submission
The conclave representatives nor the community sanction this submission
The conclave representatives reiterate that it is our duty to protect and preserve the decentralized governance experiment we have created here.
The conclave representatives acknowledge that while we admire Brennen’s intentions we must reiterate that we believe it more important that process and procedure must be upheld.
This is simply my recommendation and I cannot speak for the conclave representatives as a whole. I think in this case it would be the correct thing to do to discuss this publicly here rather than within the private group.
It is worth noting that this is the first exposure to decentralized governance for many of the participants in our project which makes it exceptionally important that we ensure the experience is positive and engaging.
Discussion now open to the public so the whole Conclave can weigh in. There is also a poll.
Should the action be punished, what punishments are acceptable?
Please leave feelings aside on the situation in particular at first, as more of a general rule. Then also feel free to share thoughts on the particular situation. The health of the Conclave rests in how we handle such things.
I think it shouldn’t be allowed, but as far as I know, there wasn’t an explicit rule for this yet, so I think there shouldn’t be any punishment. In addition, part of the community accepted the proposal with pleasure and even started another proposal to improve the character of The Amalgam.
Where I come from, code is law.
If @brennen_eth was able to do it, then he’s allowed to do it.
My view is that we uphold the results of the vote he rushed through, but immediately change the snapshot approval process so these things can never happen again.
One could also run a vote to remove @brennen_eth from the council of representatives, but I would leave that to the wider community to determine.
Have time to hear arguments on all sides of an issue, and
Have time to submit their vote
In this specific case the results needed to be final quickly, since the results would be impossible for the council to implement once the war starts.
So consider two options, imo the second case is better than the first;
23h public proposal, followed by 1h snapshot vote so it is final before the battle happens. (I don’t like this bc it only allows people 1h to submit their votes)
24h vote (gives people more time to vote, doesn’t block conversations about the topic in multiple channels that have more reach than this forum)
Much more discussion happens outside of this forum (eg twitter, discord) than in it. So I don’t think a proposal stage is necessary for urgent votes as long as the vote is structured so that people have time (at least 24h) to hear all sides of an issue and time to submit their own vote.
Regarding rules, I’d propose requiring at least 7d of live voting time for non-urgent votes, and at least 24h of live voting time for urgent votes such as this one.
I’m also open to a quarm of council members, but it should be ‘before the end of the vote time’, not necessarily before the vote.
Or maybe 7d if it involves USDC or ETH, 24h otherwise…
Thus far a narrow majority believes this action should be punished. I recommend voting if you haven’t (currently at 16 votes).
For the health of the Conclave, regardless of whether or not the individual and individual situation is punished/punishable there should be some general guidelines/actions setup for anyone who disregards the Conclave process while in a position to do so.
On the lowest end, their ability to add ‘New Proposals’ to Snapshot voting could be removed. This still allows them to be a Conclave Representative and participate in all other ways without having ability to setup a new vote.
On the highest end, extreme, they could be completely removed from their position which means removal from CR role in conclave, Snapshot, and Discord.
Conclave Representatives were elected by the Community in good faith and trust that they would be represent the community to the best of their abilities. The way this process survives and stays healthy does in part require some trust, with a system which aims to be as trustless as process.
By acting in this manner, some centralization has been exposed and given room to show kinks in the armor. At the same time, even if someone behaves in such a matter it still requires Quorum, Voting by Community etc. to even make the Vote relevant or have weight/matter… Which therein brings into consideration, how much damage was truly done and doesn’t this also show the strength in the decentralized nature of this process.
I have been torn on this one. I give Brennen a huge amount of credit for the chaos and energy he brings to the project. Staking Detriti and the CoS decrepits, plus the energy that followed, was a massive kickstart for the project and upcoming war. I have no doubt that the number of wagdie staked would be much, much lower if not for this chaotic injection.
Similarly, I kinda love the idea of using an asset like the Amalgam in this type of role play - I mean, why else is it there? (unless The Two have grand future plans for it). If the proposal had been put forward in a typical manner, or even a special “fast track proposal given urgency” that encouraged community input, discussion and ultimately Conclave Rep alignment for the proposal to be put forward. The excuse of “not enough time” is lame, the action was taken to disrupt and to cause a reaction. Not in a negative way, I have zero doubts in Brennen’s intentions and know he would not want to intentionally harm the project - quite the opposite. But processes and structure are there for a reason, and that is the growth and longevity of the project.
Although I voted for “punish”, I think this end of the spectrum is most fitting. I think the positives overall outweigh this rash action and so would personally love for Brennen to retain the CR role.
A proposal should be accompanied by a summary of CR consensus - eg “4/6 agreed” for it to be valid. I’d also negate the Amalgam proposal, whatever the outcome.
The conclusion might be quite simple, albeit annoying. And I need to make sure it’s possible… but we could instead require a multisig to write proposals, instead any one single individual having the power to just write a New Proposal.
I will confirm whether this is possible/test it. But Brennen has exposed a weakness in our process and we could instead ratify it for all future conclave members and never again allow for single individual the full power.
@Icculus is this possible, multisig to do proposals instead of individual wallet? We would require 4/6 signatures to push a proposal through.
Very true. And again why I wanted to weigh in on the action in general as well as add commentary to how we feel about the situation in particular, which I think we all agree that Council of Six Chaos and Detriti behavior brought some fun and spice into things. Thanks @chimaera for weighing in.
We already have a gnosis safe/multisig setup for WIP 9. We would just use that wallet address and remove all other wallets from being individual signers.