For now I’ve focused on the main questions of the core mission, the consensus unit and communication channels. Other important questions we need to evaluate are the voting system (which absolutely must be discussed and decided upon), and the multisig. For now lets focus on ensuring these initial questions are good quality so we can begin the initial round of voting.
Should the DAO only act to support the legal struggle of Assange or pursue other tactics to liberate Assange?
- Legal only
- Other avenues
Should the DAO also concern itself with other prisoners of conscience?
- Expand mission to justice including Assange
- Remain focused only on Assange
How much should the DAO remain focused on Assange?
Should the DAO rebrand to JusticeDAO?
What should the consensus unit be called?
- Assange family
- Consensus unit
- Advisory council
What should be the role of the Assange family in the DAO?
- Normal participants
- Extended status / limited veto
- Absolute veto
(In the event of #2 above, there will be another series of votes.
If #3 is voted on, then nothing changes about the current governance structure.)
Should the consensus unit include a quorum of non-family community members to avoid conflicts of interest?
- Require consensus from a quorum
- Leave the members of the consensus unit intact
(Method of selection for community members will have to be decided upon later.)
Should the DAO establish a direct line of communication with Assange through his lawyers given its substantial interest in his case?
- Important requirement
- Not necessary
Should the DAO request formal reports on the use of donated funds by the Wau Holland foundation?
Should moderators be required to apply a system of time-outs, and warnings before being allowed to explicitly ban people?
Should the DAO adopt a code of conduct to evenly moderate speech in official channels?
Should all bans be removed upon adopting a code of conduct?
Should bans be limited in time?