Title: Protocol Governance Removal Name: Protocol_Gov_Removal Term: 1 Cycles Cycle Amnt: 10 Total Amnt: 10 Author: Eric_Stanek Receiver:Eric_Stanek Address: DKgZhDWibNJAq9e7Z7cV4HgU3DBDPdgWUt Status: Awaiting Feedback
This proposal asks for a decision to be made via a vote.
There are key PIVians who take the position that the Governance system is solely for deciding how funds are distributed and not for simply making decisions like this. They have valid points. However, the previous decision that this proposal reverses, was voted on using this method. Therefore, the same process should be used to reverse the decision.
As such, this proposal does NOT justify this method of decision making. That is for a separate discussion. We just want to avoid anyone being able to say the original decision was undermined and reversed using a different method. It should pass or fail using the same process.
Proposal Submission Fee:
This proposal does NOT ask for the 50 PIV proposal submission fee to be reimbursed.
This Proposal asks for only 10 PIV, as that is the minimum that the system will accept when submitting a proposal.
This proposal asks for the Protocol Governance category to be removed from our Governance system. For reference, please see this page: https://pivx.org/governance/
Initially, there was only one type of proposal; the Treasury Governance proposal. Sometime in 2017 or 2018, there was a proposal submitted to add both the Manifesto Governance, and the Protocol Governance proposal categories as shown on the page above. I'm sorry I do not have the legacy data, but I am sure it exists somewhere. Regardless, it has been displayed on PIVX.org since the vote.
PIVX is about to release a completely new website, we are calling PIVX.org 2.0. If we are going to remove the Protocol Governance category from the website, now is an appropriate time to do so. Hence this proposal.
Why the Protocol Governance category was added:
Without going into details and pointing fingers, the short answer is that the Community felt that the direction of PIVX and its Governance was being undermined. The easiest way to expose this was to submit proposals that supported PIVX as a Community driven project, and therefore a proper DAO. By submitting proposals that were in direct opposition to unilateral decisions, such issues would be made completely transparent and highly visible.
As most long term members know, the power this provided was never exercised. There has NEVER been a 'Protocol Governance' proposal submitted. Just the ability to do so was enough to ensure PIVX remained a DAO.
Why the Protocol Governance category should be removed now:
Other than to expose a disconnect between what the Development Team wants to accomplish, and what the Community wants, there is no power in a Protocol Proposal. It can't force the Development Team to do do (or not do) anything. Simply put, if the Community wants to go 'Left' and the Development team wants to go 'Right', the project forks. This has not happened for PIVX yet, and I see no indication it ever will. The project is much more mature, the development team is all on the same page, and momentum is firmly supporting the DAO. Further, there are other options to protect PIVX long term now that the PIVX Foundation has the ability to take ownership of the domain and branding etc. That would provide for a group of Directors tasked with serving PIVX, to all decide on which fork is forced to take a new name/brand.
More to the point, if there ever is a desire from the Community to change the protocol, it should be done by publishing a PIP (PIVX Improvement Proposal) and presenting it to the Development Team.
When voting on this proposal, you are answering (voting) Yes or No to the following question to make a decision:
Should the 'Protocol Governance' category be removed from the PIVX.org website?
Regardless if the proposal is funded, as long as it passes, the PIVX.org website will have the following text removed from https://pivx.org/governance/ (Or whatever URL contains this information on the new website.) and the introductory text on that page will be edited accordingly.
These proposals are zero cost and are to make decisions to change the code base (the protocol) of, or the priorities of changes to, the PIVX system. If such a decision requires funding, then that funding portion would be a separate Treasury Governance proposal submitted after the Protocol Governance proposal has been accepted. What is unique about Protocol Governance is that the Core Developers can veto such proposals if they are technically impossible, or logistics dictate an order of implementation different that that voted on in the proposal."
mnbudgetvote many TBD yes
mnbudgetvote many TBD no