Draft proposal for the election of a provisional additional Multisig 选举临时多签人的提案草案

Objective:
This proposal was conceived based on the outcome of the March 4th meeting. With two previous Multisigs voluntarily resigning their Multisig status, this poses some risk to community governance, causing the proposal to close the additional $Justice minting to move forward slowly. It was therefore decided at the March 4th meeting to elect two temporary Multisigs to address this issue.

Term of office of temporary Multisig:
The term of office of temporary Multisig shall continue until official Multisig has been chosen by the community through snapshot vote. The election of official Multisig to replace temporary Multisig shall begin as soon as all conditions are met for the election of official Multisig. Conditions are including but not limited to: a clear determination of the duration of the Multisig’s term of office, the qualifications and restrictions required to become a Multisig, the rights and obligations of the Multisig, the number of Multisigs, and the existence of suitable and willing candidates for Multisig.
If a temporary Multisig does not stand for official Multisig election, the temporary Multisig will be deemed to have voluntarily renounced the Multisig position and will have his or her Multisig authority revoked when the number of official Multisigs reaches the required level.

Voting rules for Multisig after adding temporary Multisig:
Although the adoption of this proposal may increase the number of Multisig, the voting rule for Multisig operations after adding temporary Multisig will remain as 3 votes pass since Fiscantes and McKenna have chosen to resign as Multisig.

Candidates:
In order to make the filling of the vacant Multisig more efficient, it was decided during the meeting to elect the two candidates with the highest community recognition as the temporary Multisig. On the day of the meeting, the English and Chinese communities each put forward a candidate for the Multisigs: Zylo and bZ.

Zylo is one of the mods of discord. In times of great anxiety for the community, Zylo is always available on the discord to update everyone on the latest developments, and is very responsible for setting up meetings, updating announcements, and volunteering to build the new Assange DAO website. At the meeting and in the discord, the English-speaking community recommended Zylo as the representative of the English-speaking community to apply for Multsig.

bZ is one of the representatives of the Chinese community. bZ has been working around the clock almost every day to contribute to the development of Assange DAO. Such as gathering community consensus and communicating with all parties to push for a proposal to close the additional $Justice minting, a demand of many community members. Out of a Chinese community of around 500 people, we voted to elect bZ as the representative of the Chinese community to apply for Multisigs.

Proposal options (single choice):
Option 1: Select both bZ and Zylo as temporary Multisigs.
Option 2: Select only bZ as a temporary Multisig.
Option 3: Select only Zylo as a temporary Multisig.
Option 4: Refuse to make bZ and Zylo to be temporary Multisig.

目的:
该提案是基于3月4日的会议的成果构思的。由于之前有两位多签人自愿辞去多签人的身份,导致关闭增发的提案的推进速度变得较为缓慢,同时为社区治理带来了一定的风险。因此3月4日的会议中大家决定选举两名临时多签人来解决这个问题。

临时多签人的任期:
临时多签人的任职期限将延续到社区通过投票选择出正式的多签人为止。在选举正式多签人的所有条件成熟时应尽快开始正式多签人的选举来替换临时多签人。选举正式多签人的条件包括但不限于:明确决定出多签人的任职期限,成为多签人所需的资质和限制,多签人的权利和义务,多签人的数量;挑选出合适且愿意成为多签人的候选人。
在正式的多签人竞选中,临时多签人也可以参与竞选,如果临时多签人不参与竞选,则视为主动放弃多签人职务。在正式多签人人数达到要求时将被撤销多签权限。

增加临时多签人后的多签投票规则:
虽然通过这份提案可能会增加多签人人数,但是由于Fiscantes和McKenna已经选择辞去多签人职务,因此在增加了临时多签人后的多签操作的投票规则将仍然是3票通过。

候选人:
为了更有效地填补空缺的Multisig,会议期间决定选举社区认可度最高的两位候选人为临时多签人。在会议当天,英文社区和中文社区分别各自推举了一位多签候选人:Zylo,bZ。

bZ是中文社区的代表之一。bZ几乎每天都在夜以继日的为阿桑奇DAO的发展做出各种贡献。如凝聚社区共识,与各方沟通推动了关于关闭增发这一许多社群成员需求的提案。在500人左右的中文社群中,我们投票选择推举bZ为中文社区的代表申请多签。

Zylo是discord的MOD之一。在社群的人们最焦虑的时候,Zylo总是会在discord中向大家公布最新的进展,并且十分负责的做了如安排会议,更新公告等工作,同时他还在志愿建设阿桑奇DAO的新的主页。在会议与discord中,英文社群推举了Zylo作为英文社区的代表申请多签。

提案选项(单选):
选择1:同时选择bZ和Zylo为临时多签。
选择2:只选择bZ为临时多签。
选择3:只选择Zylo为临时多签。
选择4:拒绝让bZ和Zylo成为临时多签。

1 Like

I vote for option 2, because Zylo may have the time to manage the community, but he has made alot of stupid mistakes such as this one, and people could have accidentally bought the wrong token, because of this mistake. Zylo also created the 1st vote, then he wants to push a proposal that violates the 1st vote. So it is my conclusion that Zylo does not think carefully about the results of his actions.

1 Like

Due to the chaotic situation of the past two weeks in community, there is a tendency to form a wartime-like government(multi-sig).
I would prefer to fill up the both empty slot which will accelerate the process of the governance, so I’ll prefer option 1.

1 Like

Thanks for preparing this proposal! I think at the moment the snapshot isn’t ready for multiple choice votes but only for A or B, Yes or No votes because was set initially like that. I think the multiple choice can only be possible after we set Governance and decide how that will work for multiple choice voting.

If that is the case (@Zylo please correct if I’m wrong), the proposal should be:

Option 1: Select both bZ and Zylo as temporary Multisigs.

Option 2: Refuse to make bZ and Zylo to be temporary Multisig.

  • Also, to make this efective and faster, comments here should only be about how to shape and improve this proposal before going to temperature check, rather than personal opinions, buzz, or voting here since voting will only count on snapshot and not in here.
1 Like

If that’s the case, would it be better to just open two polls? Because I find that some people have different views against these two candidates.

For example:
Vote 1:
Option1: Select bZ as temporary Multisigs.
Option2: Refuse to make bZ a temporary Multisig.

Vote 2:
Option1: Select Zylo as a temporary Multisig.
Option2: Refuse to make Zylo a temporary Multisig.

Honestly I think we should keep it simple and go with only one snapshot. Not everyone can agree on everything and I think having both is a good compromise for now until we surtout Governance. It will will make things faster for now… but that its just my opinion so it will be good to hear other people feedback once @Zylo or someone from the core team confirm if we can do multiple choices to not.

2 Likes

If the current snapshot account settings are really imperfect, it is a good solution to divide multiple proposals like this

1 Like

One more proposal doesn’t have much impact, what’s important now is to keep things go on

1 Like

People on the Multisig don’t make decisions. They are supposed to be well known and trusted individuals who can sign transactions (that the community has voted on) and safeguard the DAO treasury.

What does Temporary mean?
How long will they be on the multisig?

To confirm, this will not replace Fiscantes and McKenna, but just add to the multisig?

So the Multisig will then be Amir, Rose, Silke, Fiskantes, McKenna + 2 Temps? In this case what is the amount of signatures needed to execute a proposal? 4 out of 7?

If that’s the case, 2 Temps + Silke still only make 3. Amir + Rose were both incredibly slow to sign the last transactions, so this would still require one of them.

So this actually accomplishes nothing then.
This proposal will only slow us down.

I disagree. I will vote no to Zylo and no to bZ.

I think we should vote on Governance issues first and elect a real multisig, instead of wasting time on a temporary one.

EDIT: Changed my mind, if this is what the community wants, let’s vote and get 2 new temp multisigs ASAP.

1 Like

Why are we not just focusing on what was originally set up?

  1. Advisory council (aka Assange Family unit aka Consensus Unit)
    FINISHED

  2. $JUSTICE
    FINISHED

Remaining:

  1. Multisig
    How many signers should the multisig have?

What are the requirements for being a candidate to become elected as a multisig signer?

What are the term lengths of multisig signers?

  1. Proposal validity
    What are the criteria for determining if a proposal is valid for Snapshot voting?

  2. Snapshot parameters
    Should there be a quorum, and if so, what should it be?

What should be proposal duration be?

Should there be a cooldown period, which applies to a proposal’s enforcement?

For single choice votes, what approval percentage is required to pass?

For multiple choice votes, what approval percentage is required to pass?

  1. Voting cycles
    Should AssangeDAO have a rolling voting process, where proposals can be submitted any day, or should AssangeDAO vote on a cyclical basis (e.g. every month)?

If cyclical, should there be a limit to the amount of proposals valid for voting per voting cycle?

If rolling votes, how much advanced notice should community members have before a proposal is open for voting on Snapshot?

  1. Community moderation
    What rules and standards do we want to enforce for moderating the AssangeDAO Discord and forum?

What spam prevention techniques should AssangeDAO implement for its Snapshot?

1 Like

We’re missing 2 multi-sig which means we’re facing some big systematic risk if any 1 out of the 3 remaining multi-sigs lost contact with us, we’ll lose the AssangeDAO.
Temporally multi-sigs are here to help until we’re done setting the governance and then all of the proposer and multi-sig will be re-elect.

They’ll replace Fiscantes and McKenna, so the multi-sigs can implement snapshot voting result ASAP.(just like previous case Amir and Rose are busy to respond on time)

I believe we’ve discussed that on the twitter meeting with Gabriel and other and most of the people agreed with it

Yes I was on the twitter space - Silke and Gabriel and others said that the temporary multisigs (if added) should not replace Fiscantes and McKenna, until permanent multisigs are added. Since Fiscantes and McKenna have resigned, they can still be contacted in an emergency.

I just don’t get it, why waste time on voting temporary multisigs when what we’ve wanted from the very beginning is for the community to discuss governance issues and elect a real multisig, including what are the criteria, how are they voted in, etc.

2 Likes

We’re missing 2 multi-sig which means we’re facing some big systematic risk if any 1 out of the 3 remaining multi-sigs lost contact with us, we’ll lose the AssangeDAO.
Temporally multi-sigs are here to help until we’re done setting the governance and then all of the proposer and multi-sig will be re-elect.

They’ll replace Fiscantes and McKenna, so the multi-sigs can implement snapshot voting result ASAP.(just like previous case Amir and Rose are busy to respond on time)

This is also how I understood the discussion in the twitter spaces.

Great, so why don’t you vote on it, and get the proposal on the snapshot, we already discussed making the vote 3 out of 7 on the twitter spaces, that snapshot should have been put up on snapshot already.

I think we should vote on Governance issues first and elect a real multisig, instead of wasting time on a temporary one.

Like it was discussed, the problem is that the chinese community has been excluded from the proposers and the multi-sig, and they cannot meaningfully have a part in the consensus forming. The problem is that the questions that are formed, are often a result of a false dichotomy, rather than a real consensus. Instead we should try to do something like this eventually, where we use AI to summarize the general consensus, or to generate sets of options.

That’s not the case, the reason why we thought we needed temporary multisig from the last meeting is to avoid the slow process like last time with close minting. So with this proposal, our goal is to replace Fiscantes and McKenna, so we will have two new active multisigs and Silke to finish the proposal decision quickly. 3 out of 5.

If we don’t select efficient Multisigs, then the results of future proposals may be delayed by over a week again, as they were last time, when we need Multisigs to execute the operation. In addition, we don’t need to wait for a cycle to select a temporary multisig, we can have, for example, 5-10 proposals at the same time, and the selection of temporary multisigs may only take up 1 or 2 of them.

Secondly, when we decide how to choose the multisigs in the future, if the chosen multisigs are satisfactory to the majority of the community, then we can vote to keep them, so I think choosing two temporary multisigs trusted by the community will not slow down our progress, but rather speed it up.

OK so 2 new temp mulitsigs will make it a 3 out of 7 to execute, yes?

It has to be carefully worded that these temp multisigs are only temporary and have to be voted in just like any other mulitsig afterwards.

1 Like

I think it makes sense with going forward with this being the next Snapshot vote, but we also needed a Snapshot vote to add two more Snapshot authors.

For both of these votes - adding authors and adding signers to the multisig, it is important to include the Ethereum address in the proposal body.

I also agree with Zylo the proposal body should emphasize that these are two temporary add-ons to the multisig and the seats will be up for re-election during the next set of governance votes which will happen in the next few weeks.

In the call we did not discuss removing any signers from the multisig, Fiskantes and Mckenna would stay on until there are official elections.

The multisig will then be 3/7 signatures and that should also be included in the proposal body.

@YETI can you make these edits? Note: I don’t think you will be able to submit proposals yourself until you also draft a proposal for adding the two additional snapshot authors.

1 Like

Thank you for your suggestion, I have added contents related to the term of office of temporary Multisig.

About keeping Fiskantes, McKenna’ Multisigs, yes, since they are here only for emergency, as long as we all agree with 3 agree out of 7 could pass a process, I think we will be fine for now.