Thanks ,You’ve mentioned that any governance proposal to move the DAO forward is valid, when can we move forward with this proposal draft?
Sorry, this proposal isn’t about governance, it’s about appointments. If you can really get what “governance” means, I think you’ll understand what Silke is saying.
Additionally, this proposal regarding appointments poses significant risks it constitutes an illegal appointment.
Gabriel said “a governance cycle”,I agree,The community is willing to do this during the transition period.The so-called legality and illegality, what is authorized by the community is legal, and what is opposed by the community is illegal. Let the community vote to decide.this proposal has been issued for more than 6 weeks, a vote will be initiated.
We can discuss this topic here:
I propose that we add the persons who applied to be GTU members as authors also. Not just the currently serving GTU members. This will at least ensure we are not cementing the GTU for a longer period.
1）Good idea. With so few active people now, more people involved are needed. I agree that 35 and other GTU candidates should become proposers. We can argue and publish proposals with opposing views to let the community decide, instead of the current game of a few people.
2）But it is obvious that @Gabriel has never been active in the issue of governance and delegating power to the community. Not taking the initiative means rejection. Gabriel is afraid of losing power. He still runs DAO like his own company.