4th Snapshot Proposal - Add Temporary Multisigs

Not sure what the purpose of this comment is, but I have been in this space for several years, and worked on DAO frameworks since 2018.

I did not oppose that proposal - what I am saying is that it was not timely. We were supposed to decide on governance and not decide such important matter by the RUDIMENTARY MECHANISM adopted to decide on governance itself. I find it unacceptable on how the “delay in the proposal implementation” is being used in the temp multisig proposal while our time would be better served by coming up with an antifragile governance mechanism and THEREAFTER vote on who should be on the multisig (I am happy to leave then, and so are Amir and Rose). However, because “the Chinese Community” entirely dominated the twitter spaces discussion with this topic and demanded that a “Chinese person” be added to the multisig and the list of Moderators, putting massive pressure on everyone, we are now using valuable time discussing temporary measures to appease “the Chinese Community”.

我恰恰认为这个提案是及时的。因为这个关闭通证增发这个提案和治理并没有任何冲突。相反地,这个提案的投票过程很好地验证了治理的过程,通过社区投票,放映了社区的意志。投票的主体,社区,在治理改革之前和之后都是assangedao社区,并没有改变。而正是因为它的重要性,所以需要在早期就进行确认。这个和core mission的提案投票是一个道理。因为他们直接影响到AssangeDao的社区共识。

DAO治理构架改革的目的是为了让DAO的组织性工作更加有效率,比如合理的多签人数量和具体相关细节的定义。关闭通证增发这一提案直接关系到社区共识团结,因此对DAO治理的作用是非常积极的。

关于增加两名临时的多签人的目的是为了填补两位离开的多签人的位置,这个和他们的国籍没有关系,如果有反对意见可以通过投票表达。如果您有合适的多签人人选也可以在论坛里推荐,可以通过DAO的方式来提案投票。

请不要挑起中文群和社区的矛盾。中文群是社区的一部分,也严格按照DAO的基本治理模式在运行。相互理解,信任和团结是成功的基础。

I just think this proposal is timely. Because this proposal to close the issuance of tokens does not conflict with governance. On the contrary, the voting process of this proposal is a good verification of the governance process, which reflects the will of the community through community voting. The main body of the vote, the Community, is the assangedao community before and after the governance reform, and will not change. And precisely because of its importance, it needs to be confirmed early on. This is the same as core mission proposal voting. Because they directly affect AssangeDao’s community consensus.

The purpose of the reform of the DAO governance structure is to make the organizational work of the DAO more efficient, such as the definition of a reasonable number of multi-signers and other specific relevant details. The proposal to close the additional issuance of tokens is directly related to the consensus and unity of the community, so it has a very positive effect on DAO governance.

The purpose of adding two temporary multi-signers is to fill the positions of the two left multi-signers. This has nothing to do with their nationalities. If there are objections, they can be expressed by voting. If you have a suitable multi-signature candidate, you can also recommend it in the forum, and you can vote on the proposal through DAO.

Please do not provoke conflicts between the Chinese group and the community. The Chinese group is part of the community and operates strictly in accordance with the basic governance model of DAO. Mutual understanding, trust and solidarity are the basis for success.

1 Like

Silke, I think you have made a mistake: the power of oversigning representatives comes from the Assange DAO community (Assange family is also a member of The Assange DAO). When oversigning management is inefficient, the public of the community has the right to propose and supervise. Every time the oversigning representatives do not attend the Assange Dao community meeting, the execution delays, resulting in the low efficiency of DAO. The community does not need this arrogant multi-signer, another is that it is reasonable for community representatives to join the multi-signer management

What in this instance is “the basic governance model of DAO”?

I agree the multisig signers should be changed. This should be done via a governance mechanism agreed by the community AFTER this governance mechanism has been agreed. Again, Amir, Rose and I are happy to leave the multisig. This is not in dispute.

增加的两位多签人是临时的,是为了填补两位离开的多签人的空位。这个是为了满足DAO多签人确认,3 from 5 这个规则。当然,如果之前离开的两位多签人能够回来就不需要增加两位临时的多签人。

之后举行多签人选举的前提就是3 from 5 这个规则能满足,现在的状况DAO是只有三位多签人。

The two additional multisigners are temporary and are meant to fill the empty seats of the two departing multisigners. This is to satisfy the DAO multi-signer confirmation, 3 from 5 rule. Of course, if the two multisigners who left before can come back, there is no need to add two temporary multisigners.

The prerequisite for holding a multi-signer election afterwards is that the 3 from 5 rule is met, and the current status of DAO is that there are only three multi-signers.

1 Like

Process: Community Discussion–> Proposal–>Voting–>Implementation

1 Like

On March 10, the community voted to demonstrate dao’s will with voting governance

1 Like

The problem was that Mckenna apparently had promised that he would resolve the issue, then Amir was told of the issue, and he didn’t resolve the problem with burned tokens, so the problem did not get resolved until the vote had taken place.

Moreover, the reason why the chinese community made the demands, was because they were upset regarding the second round of fundraising / extending the fundraising period, and they were legitimately afraid that their equity was going to be unilaterally diluted yet again, based upon previous experiences.

not only so called Chinese Community care about minting more tokens, all the community members care. more than 99% community members have voted that we should not mint more tokens, this is the consensus of community, we should respect that and thanks the one who makes the proposal happens.

4 Likes

The ultimate goal of all volunteers is to hope that Assange will get better and better.

Thank you for your comments on this proposal, I fully understand what you are expressing and I am well aware of why you feel that way. I think this is a misunderstanding caused by my lack of clarity in defining what I mean by the Chinese community. When writing the proposal, I didn’t feel it was appropriate to spend a lot of time on the snapshot poll to introduce our community, so I used the simple word “Chinese community” instead. for the growing Chinese community that will be mentioned below. Here I will define exactly what I mean by “Chinese community” in my proposal and its historical context.

BiSheng set up his own WeChat group interested in building and developing AssangeDAO after the AssangeDAO fundraiser ended out of frustration with the fact that almost all WeChat groups and Discord’s Chinese channel were filled with only discussions about coin prices and the FUD atmosphere at the time. He is a member with a blockchain spirit, and he has repeatedly stressed the need to communicate less about prices in the community and more about how to accelerate community governance and how to make DAO stronger and more capable of rescuing Assange. It is because of this persistence and his corresponding management style that the communication atmosphere in this WeChat group has been very good, attracting a total of 405 Chinese members as of now.
In addition to this 405-member WeChat group, he has also set up a large investor exchange group with 135 people holding positions (membership of both WeChat groups are growing daily) and a 53-member work group. The people in this working group have given themselves a clear scope of work to do for AssangeDAO and share their experiences and what they are doing on a daily basis in the work group.
Every day we have over 3,000 messages exchanged in these Weichat groups, which I know is much more than the exchanges generated on Discord and Forum.

Some of the members of the work groups, in particular, post articles, videos and contact KOLs on the Chinese internet to promote AssangeDAO; some organise the posting of news related to Assange and AssangeDAO and the spirit of Assange on Chinese social media; some take it upon themselves to translate for the Chinese community, relaying all English announcements from AssangeDAO to the Chinese. I don’t know if you’ve seen it on Twitter, but dozens of members of our community have already volunteered to donate between 100,000 and 2,000,000 Justice each to AssangeDAO’s treasury at the end of the infrastructure phase as recognition and gratitude to pay to the workers who have been working for free. Can you imagine how anyone could offer to donate 2 million Justice as an incentive if they hadn’t seen first-hand the amount of contributions that hard-working people make every day, voluntarily and without compensation?

The reason our community is independent from Discord is not because we want to separate from AssangeDAO, but because of internet controls in China and the fact that most people in our community do not have access to Discord and Telegram because it is illegal to use a VPN in China, and many do not speak English. Under these circumstances, I think it is commendable that there are people who speak good English and are proficient in using both Discord, Forum and WeChat who are willing to put in a lot of time and effort to represent the 500+ people on the WeChat side to express the views of our community in Discord and forum. If anyone wants to accuse these people of volunteering their time, please come up with a better solution and implement it first.

Having watched both Discord and Forum’s, and the WeChat group formed by BiSheng, grow over the past few dozen days, I can safely say that the volume of this Chinese community is greater than on Discord+Forum, in terms of frequency of communication, number of people, and number of people willing to take the initiative to do something. If anyone has any doubts about what I’m saying, feel free to DM me and I can pull you into our WeChat group and I’m sure everyone will welcome you.

You mentioned that no other group claims to represent the whole country and claim special rights within AssangeDAO. What I meant by the Chinese community in the proposal is not actually the whole country, but this community I just mentioned, and the reason I did not replace it with another name is because we consider ourselves to be the community of AssangeDAO, except that we are all Chinese, so we did not give our community any other name that distinguishes it from AssangeDAO. We also don’t want to split this community from the AssangeDAO community.
When you mention special rights, you are referring to Snapshot authors and Multisigs, and if you consider these rights to be special rights, please recall whether the people who have these special rights have done a good job in the past month of fulfilling their obligations commensurate with their powers. In the past month 11 Snapshot authors have issued only 3 proposals, and the only proposal that required Multisigs to perform an action took Multisigs 6 days to complete…
This speed is extremely slow in any type of organisation, let alone in the fast moving world of blockchain. Let’s not forget that the DAO is made up of people who have faith in this DAO and the current efficiency of the organisation hardly gives people hope for its future.

We hold a large number of Justice in this community and are very passionate about developing AssangeDAO and it is actually very disappointing to see how slow our DAO developing. The current AssangeDAO needs a lot of proposals and efficient multisig operations to move the community base governance forward, and we have people willing to expend energy contributing to these things, and I think it is quite reasonable to have a lot of community members asking for people they know well and are willing to invest a lot of energy in AssangeDAO to be put forward as Multisigs as a result.

By unreasonable you should be referring to the direct addition of new Snapshot authors and Multisigs without all the relevant rules for the selection of Snapshot authors and Multisigs being adopted via Snapshot vote.
Let’s imagine that it takes about how long to decide these results through a community vote? Here I’ll just do a few scenarios of the most basic questions that need to be voted on: how many Snapshot authors and Multisigs we need, how long their terms of office are, what their rights and obligations are, what the rewards and penalties are, under what circumstances they should be forcibly removed, how candidates are selected… We have only completed 3 proposals in the past month, the issues just envisaged in relation to the selection of Snapshot authors and Multisigs are only a small part of all the basic governance issues we have to complete. Apart from Zylo, what exactly are the other 10 Snapshot authors doing? If we’re really going to blame anyone, I think we should be more likely to blame people who have the power to propose but do nothing than to blame people who are willing to contribute for being Snapshot authors.
In this case, it makes sense to increase the speed of basic governance by adding snapshot authors and Multisigs who are willing to put in the effort to move the governance forward in the agreed way.

There are many of us in the community who care about AssangeDAO and doing things to develop it, but in many cases our efforts are inefficient. Because we have a lot of ideas on how to develop AssangeDAO but since we don’t have a Snapshot Author, we have to use a few volunteers to relay the consensus and suggestions from our community to people with “special rights” such as Gabriel, Zylo, Amir … If you are interested you can ask Gabriel and Amir about it. bZ and BlueCoffee have been communicating with them frequently on behalf of our community for a long time. We also have a number of members who have expressed their voices from our community on Discord and Forum. But the method of relaying requests from over 500 people through a few people to key people is very unstable in terms of moving the project forward, I understand that they are busy people in real life and cannot be responsive to the needs of our community. The community’s needs cannot be addressed through proposals from members of the community, and the lack of timely response from those with special rights makes them feel neglected, and the fact that those contacted are already busy and have to deal with a lot of messages from the community tends to create a crisis of trust in the long run. So I think the solution to the root of the problem is to devolve power to the community, so that those who can represent the community can make proposals directly from the community and carry out multi-signature operations more efficiently.

Regarding your reference to the “Russian community” and “Japanese community”, if the Russian and Japanese communities also have such a large number of active, non-English speaking and non-Discordable community members acting together in an organised and consensual way, then I think that these communities would also have their own representatives to voice the consensus and suggestions for DAO development from their communities.

When something controversial happens, the people who are in favour of it won’t necessarily come out and DM everyone in favour of it, but the people who are against it will always have an incentive to do so. So you can’t judge the rightness or wrongness of an event by how many people private message you, it’s the outcome of the poll of proposals that tells you what the majority of people think. If private messages from individuals really mattered to you, our community can also call on hundreds of people to private message you to tell you how each of us felt about bZ representing our community. haha Of course, I know it sounds like harassment, it’s just a hypothetical, we certainly wouldn’t do that. :slight_smile:

As I mentioned at the beginning, I just wanted to use this article to introduce you to what I really mean by the Chinese community I mentioned in my proposal and the reasons why we are making these requests. In reading this comment by Silke and the comments that follow in support of her, it reminded me of Jane’s novel Pride and Prejudice: people who are supposed to love each other become arrogant and prejudiced against each other because they don’t know each other well and because of rumours from others, but after both parties know each other deeply, when all misunderstandings are cleared up, they naturally fall in love and become a family. I believe that those who remain in the community and are willing to contribute voluntarily after the price of Justice has fallen for so long must be people who share common pursuits and ideals. I hope we can be willing to continue to build consensus and unite more groups with an inclusive mindset in the pursuit of justice.

For justice, we together, free Assange.

谢谢你对这份提案做出评论,我完全理解你所表达的意思,也很清楚你为什么会这么想。我认为这是一个由于缺乏了解而产生的误会。我希望能够通过这篇文章来向大家介绍我在提案中所提到的“中国社区”。

关于你不同意我在提案中使用“中国社区”:在写提案的时候,我觉得不应该在snapshot投票上花费大量篇幅来介绍我们的社区,所以我就用“中文社区”这一个简单的单词替代了下面将要提到的不断壮大的中国社区。在这里我将准确的定义一下我提案中的“中文社区”的具体含义和历史背景:

BiSheng在AssangeDAO募捐结束后出于对当时几乎所有微信群和Discord的中文频道都充满只讨论币价和FUD氛围的方案,就自己建立了一个对建设发展AssangeDAO感兴趣的微信群。他是有着区块链精神的成员,他一直多次强调在社群中要减少交流价格的次数,而更多探讨如何加速社区治理,如何让DAO更加强大,并有更强的能力解救阿桑奇。正是因为他的这种坚持和相应的管理风格,这个微信群的交流氛围一直很好,吸引了截至目前共405位中文成员。
除了这个有405个成员的微信群外,他还建立了一个有135人的持仓量较大的投资人交流群(这两个微信群的成员人数每天都在增长),还有一个53个成员的工作群。这个工作群中的人们已经给自己划分了明确的为AssangeDAO做的工作的范围,并且每天都会在工作群中交流大家的经验和在做的事情。
每天我们这些微信群都会有超过3000条信息的交流,据我所知远比Discord和Forum上产生的交流要多很多。

尤其是工作群的成员们,有的人在中文互联网上发文章,发视频,联系KOL宣传AssangeDAO;有的人在中文社交媒体组织发布跟阿桑奇和AssangeDAO相关的新闻和阿桑奇精神;有的人主动为中文社群做翻译,把来自AssangeDAO的所有英文通知及时的转达到中文社群和中文互联网;投资人交流群发起了为工作者捐款的活动,不知道你有没有在推特上看到,目前已经有几十位来自我们社群的成员自愿报名在基础治理建设阶段结束后每人为AssangeDAO的国库捐赠10-200万Justice作为对之前一直无偿做事的工作者的认可和感激。你可以想象一下,假如不是亲眼看到勤劳的工作者每天自愿的无偿的做出大量贡献,怎么会有人主动捐出200万Justice作为激励?

我们社群独立于Discord的原因不是因为我们想要跟AssangeDAO分离,而是因为中国的互联网管制和大部分人不懂英文,我们社区中的大多数人都由于在国内使用VPN违法而无法使用Discord和Telegram,而且许多人不懂英语。在这种情况下,有英语好,又能够同时熟练使用Discord,Forum和微信的人愿意付出大量的时间和精力代表微信那边500多人来Discord和Forum表达来自我们的社群意见,我认为是值得赞扬的事情。如果任何人想要指责这些主动奉献的人,请你先把更好的解决方案提出来并实施。

在过去的几十天里,我同时目睹着Discord和Forum的,还有BiSheng组建的微信群的两边的发展,可以肯定地说,无论是交流的频率,人数,还是愿意主动做事的人数,这个中国社区的量都是比Discord+Forum上要多的。如果任何人对我说的内容有所质疑,欢迎私聊我,添加我的微信,我可以把你拉进我们的微信群组来,我相信所有人都会欢迎你的。

你提到没有其他群体声称代表整个国家并要求在AssangeDAO内享有特殊权利。在提案中我所说的中国社区实际上指的并不是整个国家,而是我们这个由中国人组成的社区,而我之所以没有用别的名称来代替,是因为我们认为我们是AssangeDAO的社区,只不过我们都是中国人,所以我们并没有给我们这个社区取任何其他区别于AssangeDAO的社区名字,我们也不想分裂这个社区和AssangeDAO社区。
当你提到特殊权利时,你指的是快照作者和Multisigs,如果你认为这些权利是特殊权利,请回忆一下,在过去的一个月里,拥有这些特殊权利的人是否很好地履行了与他们权力相称的义务。在过去的一个月里,11位快照作者只发布了3个提案,而唯一一个需要Multisigs执行行动的提案,Multisigs花了6天时间才完成…
这种速度在任何类型的组织中都是极其缓慢的,更不用说在快速发展的区块链世界中。我们不要忘记,DAO是由对这个DAO有信心的人组成的,目前组织的效率很难让人对它的未来产生希望。

我们这个社区拥有大量的Justice,并且对发展AssangeDAO充满热情,面对这些拥有特殊权利的人们在社区发展上的进度实际上是十分失望的。现在的AssangeDAO需要大量的提案和高效的多签操作来推进社区基础治理的发展,而我们有人愿意花费精力在这些事情上做出贡献,我认为因此而出现很多社区成员要求把他们熟悉的,愿意在AssangeDAO上投入大量精力的人推举为Multisigs是十分合理的要求。

你提到的不合理应该指的是在没有通过Snapshot vote通过选拔Snapshot author和Multisigs的所有相关规则的前提下直接增加新的Snapshot authors和Multisigs。
我们设想一下,通过社区投票决定这些结果大概需要多久?这里我只做一些最基本的需要投票的问题的设想:我们需要多少个Snapshot authors和Multisigs,他们的任期分别是多久,权利和义务是什么,奖励和惩罚机制,在什么样的情况发生后应该强制撤销他们的职务,如何挑选候选人……现在的拥有特殊权利的团队做事的效率已经十分低下了,而刚才设想的跟选拔Snapshot authors和Multisigs相关的议题只是我们要完成的所有基础治理议题中的一小部分。在这种情况下,通过增加愿意付出精力来按照约定的方式推进治理建设的authors和Multisigs来提高基础治理的速度其实是合情合理的解决方案。

我们社区有这么多人关心AssangeDAO,为AssangeDAO的发展做了很多,但是很多时候我们的努力是很低效率的,为什么?因为我们对于如何发展AssangeDAO,AssangeDAO的发展出现了什么问题产生了很多想法,但是由于我们没有Snapshot Author,所以我们没有从社区治理的角度上发起提案改变DAO的渠道,所以我们只能通过少数志愿者把来自我们社群的共识和建议转达给有“特殊权利”的人,如Gabriel,Zylo,Amir……如果你感兴趣的话可以问问Gabriel和Amir。bZ和BlueCoffee长期以来一直在频繁的代表我们社群和他们沟通,希望能够推进AssangeDAO的建设。同时我们也有很多成员在Discord和Forum上发表来自我们社群的声音。但是通过几个人给关键人物转达来自500多人的诉求的方法对于推进项目来说是很不稳定的,我理解他们都是在现实生活中很忙的人,无法做到对来自我们社区的需求做出及时回应。社区的需求无法通过来自社区的成员通过提案解决,又得不到拥有特殊权利的人的及时响应而感觉受到了忽视,被联系的人本来就很忙又要处理大量来自社区的消息,长此以往容易产生信任危机。因此我认为从根源上解决这一问题的方法就是放权给社区,让能够代表这一社区的人可以直接替社区更高效的提案,执行多签操作。

关于你提到“俄罗斯社区” “日本社区”,假如俄罗斯社区和日本社区也有大量这么活跃的,无法使用英语且无法使用Discord的社群成员有组织,有共识的一起行动的话,我认为这些社区也会有属于他们的代表来发出来自他们社区的共识和对DAO发展的建议的。

当一个有争议的事情发生的时候,赞同这个事态发展的人不一定会专门出来挨个私信所有人去表示他的赞成,但是反对的人总是有动力做这类事情。所以你不能通过有多少人私信你来判断一个事件的对错,通过提案的投票结果才能看出大多数人的看法。如果来自个人的私信对你来说真的很重要的话,我们社群完全可以号召上百人私信你告诉你我们每个人是如何看待bZ代表我们社群这件事的。哈哈 当然,我知道这听起来有点像骚扰,这只是个假设,我们肯定不会这么做的 :)

如我在开头所提到的,我只是希望通过这篇文章向大家介绍一下我在提案中所提的中国社区的真实含义和我们提出这些要求的原因。在读Silke的这篇评论和后面支持她的言论时,让我想起了Jane的小说傲慢与偏见的内容:本应相爱的人因为不了解对方和来自他人的谣言而产生了对对方的傲慢与偏见,但双方都深刻的了解对方后,当所有误会解除时,就自然而然的相爱并成为了一家人。我相信在Justice价格下跌这么久后仍然留在社区愿意主动做出贡献的人,一定是有着共同追求和理想的人。希望我们能够愿意持续凝聚共识,以包容的心态团结更多对正义有追求的群体。

为了正义,我们在一起,解救阿桑奇。

3 Likes

All you says was an excuse and kept attacking silke in this post. you didn’t realize that the Chinese community was constantly trying to break the rules. also don’t understand that building a DAO needs to abide by the rules. Nothing is an excuse for not respecting the rules.

2 Likes

The most important and basic rule is put the proposals that community members care most and follow community members votes. Which rule has been broken by you so-called Chinese community?

Pls remember the result is by all community members, not only voted by you so called Chinese community. 99% vote for closing the minting. Are you trying to persuade us that 99% is Chinese??

1 Like

从募捐结束那一刻开始,项目正式进入社区运行模式。这些天我们所有人之间—不仅仅是中文、英文人群之间,都持续不断的产生各种主题讨论。分歧不是坏现象,恰恰说明大家对项目、社区的热爱。
From the moment the fundraising ends, the project officially enters the community operation mode. These days, all of us – not just Chinese and English-speaking people, are constantly having discussions on various topics. Disagreement is not a bad phenomenon, it just shows everyone’s love for the project and the community.
Dao的天然优势是能充分吸收全球不同地区、文化背景、认知的人;一群人,一起做一件事,这就是它的使命。
毫无疑问的是,多签人只是社区的一位执行者,真正的权力—包括所有权、收益权、参与权都属于社区大众每一个人。
Dao’s natural advantage is that it can fully absorb people from different regions, cultural backgrounds, and cognitions in the world; a group of people, doing one thing together, this is its mission.
There is no doubt that the multi-signer is only an executor of the community, and the real power - including the ownership, the right to benefit, and the right to participate belong to everyone in the community.
当前正在进行的是上次推特会议后治理层面的改进和实践,增选多签人、制定新提案规则、社区生活规则,难免有一些先后不同,但大部分人作出的选择一定不会错太多。
What is currently underway is the improvement and practice of governance after the last Twitter meeting. Co-opting multi-signers, formulating new proposal rules, and community life rules. There are inevitably some differences, but the choices made by most people must not be wrong. too much.
正因为我们来自全球不同地区、文化、生活背景、认知不同,所以难免有分歧—但一定不存在阴谋和垄断。
相信Silke提出这个问题,本身也是希望治理过程的更完善和公平合理。
这就是Assange精神。
Cause we come from different parts of the world, cultures, life backgrounds, and perceptions, it is inevitable that there will be differences - but there must be no conspiracy and monopoly.
It is believed that Silke raised this question, and also hoped that the governance process would be more perfect, fair and reasonable.
This is the Assange spirit.

3 Likes

The reason why I post that proposal draft is to speed up a proposal and make the future multi-sig processes faster. 10 out of 11 snapshot authors post 0 proposals in the last month, one small process cost Multisigs 6 days. We are trying to fix problems one by one, and here you are accusing us of breaking rules.

You’re probably so venerated by authority that you’ve forgotten the purpose of their existence

The community will appreciate your hard work in making proposals.If you think I’m accusing you of breaking the rules by making proposals then you’ve misunderstood. Maybe you were too busy to see the rule-breaking coming.

But it’s not cool to attack people at any time.

1 Like

I agree nobody could possibly represent a community, just because they happen to have a language ability.

The sooner 3 or 4 Governance model options are put up for discussion and then for a vote the better. Can’t get much further without structure.

If the DAO needs external expertise to develop at least 3 models to be voted upon, then perhaps that should be decided upon by the Assange family. Do members here have the necessary expertise to set up a model when all of this is new? How would we know?