What do you think about this Draft Proposal?
Rick - ignoring the other issues here, what do you think of the Draft Proposal? Just trying to keep this on topic.
So they should be replaced. We need someone who can be on camera, if need be.
Not sure. I was going through it quickly. Some aspects seem odd to me and also go against the first proposal, which we had voted on with 96% main focus on Julian…
The proposal also mentioned that the family benefitted of the “donated” money. Actually the donation went to WAU Holland, so it’s not really correct information in it if I interpreted it correctly… The proposal states this DAO is not just for Julian… which somehow seems to be in conflict with our voted main mission… That’s also the reason, why I focused on other stuff…
Anyway, Julian’s situation is pretty serious now and I don’t want to loose my focus on other projects, issues or things where I am no expert in. It’s not productive if I spent time with things, where I am no expert in. I have not so much time for every aspect. Life is too short and I would like, if I can, to delegate such things to people that really know what they are doing in their speciality.
This proposal came before the first proposal which was submitted on behalf of the Gabriel Assange, who in fact did benefit personally in the form of a NFT brokerage fee from Wau Holland.
When you say ‘the power of the court to issue the writ extends to any circumstance where a person is in the custody or control of the US government even with an agreement with a foreign actor,’ are you suggesting that a USA legal action taken by the DAO could free Assange from UK imprisonment?
If the US courts dismiss the indictment, upon granting a writ of habeas corpus, then there is no extradition, and therefore no reason to hold Assange in UK prison.
I just read this and threw up a little in my mouth.
Are you not, in effect, accusing Barry Pollack—Assange’s U.S. lawyer since 2013—of malpractice for failing to petition for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. federal court?
I am impugning him for his feigned charity, to be accused of malpractice of law, you must of course first practice law for that person. So far nothing has been done, for whatever reason that may be, so he can’t commit malpractice.
I would also like to note, that in the article he stated that he would not be bringing the Assange case to the new firm. A partner to a firm have a duty to the firm and their existing clients and profit revenue, so it is entirely possible that could be precluding him.
This proposal is for a professional position to consolidate this DAO so it can advance and concentrate on direction and collaboration, get out of this rut of uncertainty re viable funding projects and thus not fold.
Does anyone deny this DAO is experiencing inertia and a disconnect? Is there an agreed roadmap? No there is not.
So does it need someone with professional DAO managerial skills to complete governance, moderation transparency, funding and synching the community to work together. Yes or no?
Or will the DAO continue with no managerial responses at the forum to people’s ideas and proposals, no community calls each month, no community decision re voting on who are holding positions or defining those positions, no agreed upon roadmap re priorities or completion of governance. If that is the case, then perhaps, the treasury should be used to reimburse all of its “shareholders” and the DAO call it quits and be satisfied it raised so much for Assange’s legal expenses.
In September 2020, Barry Pollack told journalist Kevin Gosztola that he was coordinating with the team of British lawyers representing Assange in extradition proceedings, “advising them on U.S. law, U.S. procedures, what Julian would face if he were brought here because some of that is quite relevant to the extradition proceedings.” Doesn’t such advice from one lawyer to other lawyers constitute the practice of law?
In my mind that would be a DAO specialist, with a proven track record in DAO management!!!
No, otherwise all of the “lawtube” and “blawg-o-sphere” people would be “practicing law”, and could be sued for malpractice by merely giving out legal information on the internet. Lawyers talk alot of the time, and there are mailing lists and in person events, where they discuss legal issues. The practice of law involves the drafting of legal documents for a person, representing a person in court.
Still trying to use rhetorical claims about whether or not I’m accusing him of malpractice, is irrelevant to the fact that even if we grant the last time he was engaged was almost 2 years ago, I do not see any work product from this attorney, where he is representing Julian Assange.
I do not care to speculate why he has failed to produce a writ of habeas corpus, but I am not going to be naïve enough to trust lawyers on blind faith, having seen enough lawyers lose on account of their lack of preparation or plain incompetency, only to have these people found to be innocent years later. For example, our state was violating the defendants right to a unanimous jury trial for decades, and lawyers were uninterested in fighting for this constitutional guarantee for their defendants, and it took a jailhouse lawyer going to the US supreme court to fix it.
Again this could be because pro bono work conflicts with his duties as a partner of a law firm to generate revenue, or because he was waiting for money to come from Assange, or that he neglected to consider the legal issue. I cannot speculate why he failed to deliver, but I do not have illusions that any individual is selfless enough, to voluntarily fall one one’s sword over a pro bono case. There are unfortunately too much work and not enough pay in the criminal defense industry, to the extent that my state claims to only have 1/3rd of the required number of defense attorneys, which is the entire reason why i started on the ML / LAW endeavors to begin with.
Moreover another concern I have is that a lot of lawyers want to have a famous client for PR reasons, as it helps them land people who have deep pockets and are looking for “the best lawyer money can buy”, and some of those PR / money hungry individuals in the past been shown to be dishonest, such famous recent examples include Michael Avenatti, Lin Wood, Sidney Powell.
I very much agree that DAO’s decisions or proposals should be initiated by professionals or elites, and finally confirmed by snapshot. But at present, going to the proposal to hire the operation director cannot solve the problem of DAO, and the time is wrong.
The logic should be to establish perfect DAO governance rules, open the right to propose proposals, determine the organizational form of DAO governance after thorough discussion, and then elect the responsible person through voting. Some would think that would take too much time, but in fact our DAO is at a low point and we have time. What we’re going to do now is to build the foundation on which the DAO operates. Of course, I proposed in the previous post that a governance committee should be formed. We cannot rely on one person. This is very dangerous, and the fault tolerance cost of DAO will be very high.What should the DAO do next? Governance! Governance! Governance! - #6 by zian
Also, our DAO is very poor and any proposals for the use of treasury funds should be avoided until the responsible team of the treasury and the economic model of the treasury are determined, otherwise they will again be faced with the dilemma of lack of funds to work.
In addition, PMA’s departure is full of controversy, and if this proposal is passed, it will only prove once again that his departure was a decision-making error. This can be reversed. Under the current DAO organizational structure, this proposal has no possibility of being passed.
In conclusion, there is no need for discussion on this proposal. But this is the wealth left by the PMA to the DAO, which may be used rationally at the right time in the future.
With due respect, did any Admin communicate to you about your governance. governance thread?
Please suggest how you wish to get over the first hurdle of being heard by Admin?
Because all of the shortcomings you raised (and by the way are recognised and addressed in this draft proposal) have been stated time and time again on this forum by multiple people. Since February, the same issues have been discussed.
Do you want to give them another month? Put a date on this action.
That is the main drawback of the draft proposal - which is why PMA inserted the month probation period (because we really do expect a professional to work 8 hours per day to get things done) and an alternate 6 months contract and a 12 months version, whilst they’re building on a roadmap and treasury improvement.
They would be responsible for putting a qualified team together from this community, would therefore never be working alone (and are responsible to the Consensus Unit), would be required to do reports to the community at least every 15 days. One of their key skills would be liaison and synching with this community.
I hope you re read the proposal. If you want that part of the proposal to make it clearer - than that part can be re done. But I don’t see that as necessary really as those fuller requirements would be part of their job description which wold be advertised more comprehensively. This person would be tasked to work with this community and keep it informed. This is exactly what this community needs if it is to succeed.
You’re not wrong about that! Lack of transparency, no weight placed on PMAs work and capabilities - dismissed because they had the audacity to complain and point out aspects already touched upon, over and over by the community itself. Other talents have left on their own accord due to not being appreciated it seems too.
By mid-June - there must be an improvement.
I have posted the relevant content of this post on the forum, discord general chinese governance-discussion channel,three WeChat groups and pointed to the forum link, I can probably ensure that my suggestion can be accepted by all aspects of the Chinese community currency holders, of course I do not conduct official opinion statistics. They paid such a high price for the DAO cause, but became the weakest victim of the DAO.
I’ve posted twice on the discord core-team and @ relevant roles, but so far I haven’t gotten a response from any admins other than @Rick_Velvet . It’s a real shame, I think I’ve done what I can on this. At the same time I don’t think anger will make my advice heed.
In addition, regarding the proposal of this thread, my opinion has been expressed. It is valuable but not suitable for promotion at present. I think that it will only bring disappointment to discuss and optimize it in detail.
I have limited access to discord. I don’t think Rick is admin by the way.
Its disappointing that you were ignored. Thanks for the update though. So that was two weeks ago. Give it another two weeks I guess and see what eventuates.
In the meantime - my intention this week to buy tokens has been crushed - even though over the weekend I set up the necessary accounts after finally figuring out the best way…I cannot see the point at the moment.
Time to act, don’t let this project become a joke. This would seriously damage Mr Assange’s reputation.
I didn’t ignore it. What do you expect me to do?Remember, that I am no Mod or Admin. I have a lot to do and read your suggestion quickly and I agreed already that there are a lot of things that need to be discussed.
If there is a misunderstanding in my language, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I mean, in the core-team, you were the only one who responded, I didn’t mean that you ignored me.