As a long-time advocate for Julian Assange and a supporter of the AssangeDAO, I want to commend the efforts made in AIP-12 to transition AssangeDAO into a new revitilsation phase. I do believe the AIP-12 can be improved so the GTU does not entirely replace the role of the consensus unit.
The consensus unit as part of Julian’s family, are his voice in the DAO and we represent his wishes and best interests until a time where he can do so on his own.
A massive thank you to Stellar Magnet for her efforts over the years, she has made a great contribution to AssangeDAO and Julians freedom. But obvious now that a modification to AIP-12 needs to come from the community so we can move forward with the next steps of improving the governance.
TBH when I first read it I did not see that it was to remove the consensus unit - was that there in an earlier version that did not state that? Normally Im good at picking up on that sort of thing - because that is a really big change.
The AssangeDAO could not call itself the AssangeDAO without that connection retained IMO. I also note that Stellar Magnet on an alternate TG implied that at the time the AIP had not been discussed with the Consensus Unit?
I would also like to see Zylo back in if that is what they want. And Im not sure if BZ is here anymore. And we haven’t heard from Silke although it is known she’s busy with family and conferences and so on. I also like JBs capabilities.
Agree that the consensus unit cannot be removed，API 12 is a good proposal， Since Stella left for personal reasons，a five person Governance Transition Unit need to change,I think all active members in the community are eligible.I would recommend Peter Tobias and Star.Sea as the remaining two.The reason for recommending them is simple. They have always been in the community and have never left，They are also very rational.
I agree, if the consensus unit goes then the DAO would have to change its name.
I don’t think any decision should be made about the consensus unit until Julian makes it clear what he wants from/for the DAO. Until then, the consensus unit should stay more or less as it is. If governance gets adjusted, the consensus unit can be tweaked, but it needs to stay intact unless Julian and the DAO decide to part.
The moon on the sea, the horizon together at this time, today is the Chinese traditional festival, the Mid-Autumn Festival, I wish you and your family reunion, happiness and well-being.
I am very glad that you can come here to communicate with everyone. I want to maintain communication. Mutual respect is the only way for all parties to win. The dao members’ greatest desire is to develop the dao, not to oppose it, and if the consensus group can support the dao’s continued development, then everyone will support the consensus Group.
The first thing we do is refine this proposal that needs to be changed, not the first thing we do is elect who is the best candidate for GTU.
I apologize that I may not be able to comment on this proposal in a timely manner these days because of my work. But I think what is needed to refine the proposal is more urgent than who to nominate for office. At the same time, I think the necessary requirements to become a member of the GTU need to be discussed with the consensus unit.
Well,You can keep your opinion. This is also just my personal opinion.I think AIP-12 does not need to make any changes except add 2 more GTU nominee.AIP-12 have made a request that GTU nominees must be vouched for by at least two of the current defined GTU members.
By the way, no need to apologize, if you really care about the community, you can always find time for refining the proposal
Open Zeppelin/tally have a time lock for additional security - no “consensus” capacity. .How does that suit Gabriel/Assange? Technical people need to chime in here and do a thorough review of Open Zeppelin. That AIP proposal says there was a technical team doing that work but nobody has heard any further feedback. It also states that Amir was uncertain whether there was agreement on this model by the community, Can Tally customise a hybrid model for us? If not which supplier can? If snapshot could be improved to allow more people to write proposals instead - would that be a quicker solution and more suitable in the interim? Tally/Open Zeppelin favours people who are larger holders to write proposals (must be a 1% stakeholder). So there is that too. If we remain with snapshot - is that a useful rule to abide by? What happens if we inherit funds from Wau Holland re the 1% rule - would there be enough proposers then? Who currently have proposal rights and are still active and are available right now to tweak this? Why wasn’t this proposal placed on this forum by the authors ? Are all the multisigs registered on the forum? Community is restrained when the majority of leadership people who have existing designated roles and rights are not present. Let’s ask them on behalf of Julian to register onto the forum. Surely their interest is peaked now that Julian has been freed and there are signals that he wants this place to succeed (new forum, new exchange listing) ? There are 28 users and only one person here who I recognise as a multi sig. Maybe a meeting with an invite to all of the people who have current leadership status (exisitng proposers and multi sigs) and those technical people who were investigating Tally might be the next step.
I ask questions and have ideas but I have zero technical capability. If Amir wishes to leave the DAO - they must be replaced by a person with high technical proficiency. A proven track record in technical and management capabilities,preferably with DAO experience - not merely say so. But thanks. But we need to look for top level people and nothing less.
AIP-12 does‘t emphasize the status of consensus units or describe their relationship to GTU. If the community wants to keep the consensus units, then this needs to be clear in this proposal. The previous AIP-3 about consensus units just fit the old governance system, the new governance system needs to incorporate this item to be effective.
At the same time, this proposal sets out the governance advice . Once this proposal is adopted, the new proposal on governance mentioned in this proposal should be prioritized.
The GTU is meant to be temporary, according to AIP-12, which is supposed to help create a transition process. I don’t think it’s meant to be a new final governance, just a way of letting the DAO more neatly establish a functioning governance.
But Gabriel is probably right that “AIP-12 can be improved so the GTU does not entirely replace the role of the consensus unit”, even as a temporary/transitional measure. I think the GTU was meant to preserve the spirit of the consensus unit anyway, in theory changing how it does that shouldn’t be a problem.
That’s how I read and understand things, at least.
Strong agree. DAOs are a different world that deal with a lot of specialties.
Whoever takes on that role needs more than a strong personality and personal connections. I’m more technically capable than most, but when it comes to this stuff I know just enough to recognize that it demands someone who understands it and can speak the language well enough to deal with the community when needed, and the folks who are worried about lawyers and government offices when they have to
I think some people understandably assume it gets rid of the consensus unit because it doesn’t say anything about the consensus unit and was setting up a transitional governance.
The Governance Transition Unit (GTU) does not have a set duration or set exit conditions. And it is explicitly proposed in 1.3.1-3 to replace the consensus unit.
So I would like to pose some questions for consideration before the proposal is further modified:
Is there a potential conflict of interest between the Consensus Unit and the GTU?
Is it possible to have a specialized group to analyse the proposal from different perspectives while the consensus unit is commenting? The role of this group would be similar to the GTU.
discussion covers the beginnings of the DAO, the original snapshot structure, the maxibid causing an unrealised potential for the DAO.
18:30 mins - What happens to the DAO now that Assange is freed? Ideas - it becomes a cypherpunk freedom movement or a DAO directed by Assange himself
20:00 mins - What is happening re Wau Holland return of unused funds? Rose mentions a rumour that funds would be transferred to PAK and to a foundation controlled by Assange. That would be to nullify the potential of DAO bad actor take-overs and state sponsored actors//psyop infiltrators. Rose thinks that sounds like “history repeating itself” - favouring a non-crypto traditional entity once again…
24:30 mins - How soon do you expect the new propsoal to be approved? Rose says about one month (which would indicate the interview was recorded weeks ago) .
28:00 mins - Is Assange excited about the prospect of directing the DAO? Rose says they’re preparing (assume the authors of the GTU proposal) for the DAO for this eventuality. She mentions Amir’s proposal which was addressed to Assange. Rose then discusses dark-fi, problems re DAOs operating on ETH etc
If the community wishes to keep the consensus unit, then I will restructure AIP12. I would like to take the proposal for the consensus unit in AIP3 and additionally modify the GTU.
First of all, after reading the proposal, I think that the role of the GTU is still centralized and also no conditions set for it to be delisted. It still has bureaucratic attributes. I would like this organization to be more decentralized and de-bureaucratized. Also give the power to modify the proposal to the community.
Since GTU is the name given in place of the Consensus Unit, and since the Consensus Unit continues to function I would like to change the name to the Community Alumni Unit(CAU). So in my scenario the Consensus Unit vetoes proposals that harm Julian Assange, and the Community Alumni Unit vetoes proposals that harm the community.
In my AIP12 framework contains:
Part I: Transfer of the new governance platform;
adopting the original content of AIP12.
Part 2: The Consensus Module;
adopting the content of AIP3.
Part 3: Community Alumni Unit;
Personnel only have veto power based on veto options, no other special powers.
Add personnel background vetting clause.
Set de-listing conditions.
Veto Options:
•Veto extreme token economics and proposals that are not endorsed by a financial advisor;
•Veto proposals that create a centralized organization;
•Veto proposals that elect leaders;
•Veto conflated proposals;
• Veto proposals that fail to clearly articulate motivation;
•Veto proposals that go outside of the DAO’s core mission and ability to take action;
•Veto proposals for ineffective discussion, including proposals whose authors do not effectively respond to community concerns.
Part 4: Externally hired team;
On Token Economics and Financial Expenditures, There is a need for the community to engage a renowned team of advisors on a permanent or temporary basis, and to follow the advice of the team of advisors before submitting a new Token Economics proposal.
Develop an approach to financial spending.
Part 5: Community governance.
New proposal submissions will be allowed only after the following governance proposals have been refined.
Community Alumni unit nominations and selection; Community Code of Conduct; MOD behavioral rules and selection rules; Decide on official social platforms; Select MODs; Determine social platform expenses to be paid by the treasury.
