They do all of their discussion, in private, counter to what was said upfront, in the proposal to create it. Or, there is no discussion… impossible to tell from the outside as there is zero transparency.
At the least, the discussions should be open to view, it’s ok if only DTF members can post, as this group has control of the money, and therefore should have zero privacy in their deliberations.
maybe im a bit late here, and i am not very aware of the situation. but either way: what kewlness has to say about the bi-weekly votes does sound like a very good idea.
This last weekend, Dr Wagmi came up with a great idea, to help us keep the DAO focused and moving along.
Have an official DAO meeting once a week, schedule new business for next time, take presentations on old business the second week, and then use the meeting to decide if you want to push the idea to snapshot or back to more discussion.
Keep minutes, stay focused, and stay on track.
Use the Discord for brainstorming and the forum for fleshing things out, and the meeting for presenting your best cases for and against.
If we were doing this, we would have resolved this already…
This is a witch hunt, but regardless we do need a process for removing bad actors from a task force/DOA-multisig if need be. A few thoughts since no one else seems to be stepping to the plate.
1st. There should be a call to action. e.g. This person has done wrong, here are all the facts laid out for everyone to see, and here are my/our justifications for why this person would be removed.
2nd. After it has been discussed in a forum thread, then it can be moved to an initial sig-prop where the community can vote on whether or not the vote for removal should take place or not.
3rd. If the sigprop is moved to a coreprop, then the removal of that individual can officially be voted on, and the decision that is made in that core prop is final.
I know I, Addison, am at the center of this and am a conflict of intrest, which is why I will leave it up to the community to decide my fate on this matter. I admit that I initiated this conversation through the bad actions I took while inebriated on a lot of drugs (which I am sober now and making a commitment to myself to be so moving forward for the sake of myself and everyone around me), and am willing to be put on trial if the community deems that I must, cause my actions have consequences and I must face those consequences head on.
Love you all regardless of how you all decide to progress forward on this matter.
May God Bless You All.
Sincerely,
Addison
Regardless of the eventual process for addressing the removal of committee members there should be a set of standards for member behavior against which any allegations of misconduct can be evaluated. I am not aware whether such standards for member behavior exist.
Just because a committee member is contrarian, passionate or obstinate is not sufficient grounds, in my opinion, to summarily remove that member. Democracy is messy and sometimes fraught with emotion. But if someone violates the procedural, fiscal or ethical standards of membership then there should be a process for presenting the allegations of misconduct, reviewing them and subsequently providing the DAO with a procedure for removing or vindicating said member. I agree that the committee should not have the authority to remove its own members but committee members can , and probably should, participate in the review of misconduct. The member in question should have an opportunity to rebut.
Hopefully this kind of situation will be rare. Committee members should be encouraged to work out their internecine issues amongst themselves without polluting the DAO’s social media channels with their drama. But once such issues spill over into the DAO generally then the process for reviewing the conduct alleged to be in violation of known standards should be promptly invoked and the membership matter quickly decided by quorum vote.
Excellent Start - Maybe be a little more specific in the wording.
I think putting in a poll in the forum thread, with the following options as the two choices, is appropriate, allow people to change their vote. It’s not a vote on the issue, it’s a vote on whether there has been enough info presented yet to make an informed decision.
The list of possible things one could be disbarred for should be very short. Off the top of my head I can think of the following -
Ok, so I had three when I started typing… there must be more?