The Representatives (Proposers) - Draft of Governance Framework 002.1(DGF 002.1)

The community is to elect 13 (confirmed number is to be discussed) representatives eligible for submitting proposals to snapshot. The representatives (proposers) are required to be the holders of Justice tokens.

The representatives are responsible for managing the community and ensuring the welfare of every single community member.

The rights and obligations of the representatives:

  • The representatives are to examine or edit the drafts of proposals made by the community members and to submit the examined or edited proposals to snapshots.

  • The representative team must establish the internal assessment system. When there is an abuse of power by any representatives, other members of the representative team must convene an internal meeting among representatives to handle such issue. On a periodic basis, the team of representatives should review the representative team and consider the removal of inactive representatives. Following the internal meeting among representatives, any representative who abuses power could be voted by the representative team to be terminated. If there is no consensus among the representative team on the termination or removal of a representative, a 75% approval vote among the existing representative team will mean the representative will be terminated or removed.

The process of election of representatives:

The election of representatives starts from the self-nomination within the channel of “election of representatives” in the server of Assange Dao Discord. The plural voting system is utilised by community members to narrow the list of candidates down in which the use of emoji reactions on Discord could constitute the support towards any candidate. Based on the election carried out on Discord, at most 30 shortlisted candidates would be put on snapshot for the final election. By using “Approved voting system” (“AVS”), the top 13 candidates would be elected as the representatives who shall hold office for a tenure of one year. The original team of candidates would be removed and replaced by the newly elected team of candidates after the election of representatives is carried out.

Suggested “Approved voting system” (“AVS”) is to be decided where the methods stated below could be taken into account.

AVS 1: “Plural YES or NO” system. (For eg. Mr. Andrew is a holder of 1000 tokens and has 1000 votes. If Mr. Andrew wishes to vote for Candidate A and Candidate B, Candidate A could obtain 1000 votes and meanwhile Candidate B could also obtain 1000 votes. If Mr. Andrew does not wish to vote for Candidate C and Candidate D, both of the candidates obtain no vote at all, compared to Candidate A and Candidate B who respectively receive 1000 votes from Mr. Andrew.)
AVS 2: Plural voting system based on distribution of votes. (For eg. Mr. Andrew is a holder of 1000 tokens and has 1000 votes. If Mr. Andrew wishes to vote for Candidates A, B, C and D, he has discretion to cast 400 votes for Candidate A, 300 votes for Candidate B, 200 votes for Candidate C and 100 votes for Candidate D. If Mr. Andrew wishes to only vote for Candidate A, then 1000 votes would be casted to the latter.)
AVS 3: Plural voting scoring system. (For eg. Mr. Andrew is a holder of 1000 tokens and has 1000 votes. For every single candidate, Mr. Andrew has discretion to cast 0-1000 votes to them.)
AVS 4: Single voting system. (For eg. Mr. Andrew is a holder of 1000 tokens and has 1000 votes. Among Candidates A, B, C and D, Mr. Andrew could only cast 1000 votes to either Candidate A or Candidate B or Candidate C or Candidate D.)

(Drafted by: Andrew, BT, 星Star)





  • 审核社区成员的草案并且帮助草案完善与编辑,以及发起snapshot提案。

  • 代表需建立内部审核机制,当代表出现滥权行为或者怠职行为(如xxxx,被社区成员举报等等),社区其他代表需召开内部会议审核并处理。 代表团队应定期审查代表团队并考虑罢免不活跃的代表。代表内部会议后,任何滥用职权的代表都可以由代表团队投票终止。如果代表团队对终止或罢免代表未达成一致意见,则现有代表团队中 75% 的赞成票将意味着终止或罢免代表。


选举从阿桑奇DAO Discord服务器上的提案代表选举频道中的自我提名开始。然后,社区成员使用批准投票系统缩小候选人的范围,其中表情符号响应构成对候选人的支持。根据Discord投票,最多30名入围候选人将在Snapshot上进行最终投票。使用批准投票系统(AVS),前13名候选人当选为下一年的提案代表者。提案代表任期为一年。 在开展代表选举后,将被删除并取代候选人的原始候选人,并取代了新选举的候选人团队。


AVS 1:“复数是或否”系统。 (例如,Andrew 先生持有 1000 个代币,拥有 1000 张选票。如果 Andrew 先生希望投票给候选人 A 和候选人 B,则候选人 A 可以获得 1000 票,同时候选人 B 也可以获得 1000 票。如果 Andrew 先生 不希望给候选人 C 和候选人 D 投票,这两个候选人都没有获得投票,相比之下,候选人 A 和候选人 B 分别从 Andrew 先生那里获得了 1000 票。)

AVS 2:基于投票分配的复数投票系统。 (例如,Andrew 先生持有 1000 个代币,拥有 1000 张选票。如果 Andrew 先生希望投票给候选人 A、B、C 和 D,他可以自行决定为候选人 A 投 400 票,给候选人 300 票B,候选人C 200 票,候选人D 100 票。如果 Andrew 先生只希望给候选人A 投票,则后者将获得1000 票。)

AVS 3:复数投票评分系统。 (例如,Andrew 先生持有 1000 个代币并拥有 1000 张选票。对于每位候选人,Andrew 先生可以自行决定向他们投 0-1000 票。)

AVS 4:单一投票系统。 (例如,Andrew 先生持有 1000 个代币,拥有 1000 张选票。在候选人 A、B、C 和 D 中,Andrew 先生只能向候选人 A 或候选人 B 或候选人 C 或候选人 D 投 1000 票。 )

(起草人: Andrew, BT, 星Star)


is the chinese translation correct, this is what I get:

Done complement Chinese version.

1 Like

This is a proposal that will help us govern efficiently.

1 Like

I am unsure whether this is a translation issue but I find it a high bar to care for the “welfare” of every community member. A snapshot author cannot be responsible for the economic livelihood, health etc. for a community of 1000s of persons. Please could this be changed.

One factor which I see missing in the proposal is that the agreed upon proposal process needs to be complied with for every single proposal. So, for example, if the Governance Mechanism suggests that a proposal needs to be in AIP format, needs to be discussed in the forum for a minimum of 4 days and pass a forum poll successfully, then this is the structure Authors need to comply with. If they don’t, they should be removed by the multisig.

I suggest that the initial election of Authors must be via snapshot like any other proposal of the AssangeDAO. I also note that if the AssangeDAO votes to gatekeep this function by the number of tokens only, then no Authors will be necessary (see point 10 in Zylo’s post on the subject).

In order to keep AssangeDAO proposals to a number that can be reviewed by the community without requiring them to devote a lot of time and to allow Authors to align proposal submission among themselves, it is generally better to have a small number of Authors. Many DAOs have no more than 3-5 persons allowlisted as Authors to keep proposals consistent and not-overlapping. I would also suggest to have time periods akin to juicebox for when new proposals are being put up: like every second week of the month etc. to ensure government decisions are scalable enough.

Just to clarify some misconception on the original group of Authors: The reason 11 wallet addresses were added originally was to have initial flexibility as to who would be able to devote time to this activity from the initial core contributors (all were asked to provide a wallet address then). There was no expectation that the 11 persons would indeed deal with this process.

1 Like

When will this be finalised?