Menu
What's new

Voted out? What happens next...

G

Gerrald

Active Pivian
Let's discuss this publicly. How does a dao work when someone is voted out?

If your voted out do you continue working with the voted in pivx team?

Do you transition someone over to take over your role?

Do you relinquish all accounts related to pivx?

Do you ignore the vote and continue what your doing?

Maybe do Should be Should? Dunno my view is your voted out your then on a volunteer Base but the control over that section is relinquished to someone else.

There is no handover policies wrote or being discussed even tho it had been mentioned many times.

Voting changes month to month so I think something needs to be wrote up as the standard for handovers if someone is voted out.

If someone is voted out and there is no one to take over that role what happens?

If someone is voted through to a team what happens then? How much access are they provided with?

Are there going to be public team summaries? Some propsoals are doing reports, some do summaries every now and then. Some write nothing. What should be the standard for proposals so masternode owners know the proposal persons worth? What have they been doing if nothing is seen?
 
Your 1st question is;

"How does a dao work when someone is voted out?"

We can't answer that question, because it doesn't apply.

MNOs vote 'Yes' or 'No' to determine if a PROPOSAL is paid. They do not vote to determine if a PERSON is 'in' or 'out'.

There are many reasons why MNOs might not want a proposal to be paid. Perhaps there isn't room in the budget, or someone thinks the 'T-shirts' line item is too expensive, or the person should finish their other proposals first. Or maybe the proposal should wait on some milestone being reached first by another team etc. Perhaps the proposal is for a questionable exchange listing, or an effort that just doesn't bring significant value to PIVX. Maybe the proposal is too complex and should be broken up into smaller proposals. If I had more time, I could probably go back thru past proposals to find many more possible reasons.

In each of these scenarios, the reason a proposal was voted down, had nothing to do with the person's reputation, skills, or trust level.

Granted, sometimes, it might be that the reason is the person is not trusted to complete the proposal. However, there is no way to know which MNO votes were for which of those reasons. In fact, every MNO may have a different reason. The only common characteristic among all the MNO 'No' votes, is that they don't want the proposal to be paid.

Since we can't possibly know the votes for each reason, we can't act on them either. All we can do, is simply leave it to the network to pay the funds based on the coded rules.

I hope that all makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Gerrald said:
Let's discuss this publicly. How does a dao work when someone is voted out?

If your voted out do you continue working with the voted in pivx team?

Do you transition someone over to take over your role?

Do you relinquish all accounts related to pivx?

Do you ignore the vote and continue what your doing?

Maybe do Should be Should? Dunno my view is your voted out your then on a volunteer Base but the control over that section is relinquished to someone else.

There is no handover policies wrote or being discussed even tho it had been mentioned many times.

Voting changes month to month so I think something needs to be wrote up as the standard for handovers if someone is voted out.

If someone is voted out and there is no one to take over that role what happens?

If someone is voted through to a team what happens then? How much access are they provided with?

Are there going to be public team summaries? Some propsoals are doing reports, some do summaries every now and then. Some write nothing. What should be the standard for proposals so masternode owners know the proposal persons worth? What have they been doing if nothing is seen?
Click to expand...
I believe we can define some things but because of the nature and structure of the DAO, we do not have the same capabilities as a corporate entity.

When someone is “voted out” would be something thats dictated by the situation, depending on what their roles are there are many different things, so we have to be specific to roles.

Then theres the caveat of a user being trusted, thats why they work for us but if its a contentious situation, whats the remedy for a bad actor? Just non compliance?

Do you have some ideas for these policies to try to have an idea of what you are thinking and what direction to go?

If someone is voted out without a replacement the question is again the situations for those?

In terms of accounts we thankfully have not had much trouble aside from maybe local regional accounts, and they were not people voted in or out.

Can you define also what is voting someone out? If our intention in the budget proposals is funds, are they voted out?
 
Liquid369 said:
I believe we can define some things but because of the nature and structure of the DAO, we do not have the same capabilities as a corporate entity.

When someone is “voted out” would be something thats dictated by the situation, depending on what their roles are there are many different things, so we have to be specific to roles.

Then theres the caveat of a user being trusted, thats why they work for us but if its a contentious situation, whats the remedy for a bad actor? Just non compliance?

Do you have some ideas for these policies to try to have an idea of what you are thinking and what direction to go?

If someone is voted out without a replacement the question is again the situations for those?

In terms of accounts we thankfully have not had much trouble aside from maybe local regional accounts, and they were not people voted in or out.

Can you define also what is voting someone out? If our intention in the budget proposals is funds, are they voted out?
Click to expand...
I define it as if you don't get funds you have lost that role.

Judging by both Eric's and yours comments there is no defined process for handovers which definitely need to be discussed. I can see a time where some are no longer getting voted through, maybe other groups gain control over the voting so funds are shifted to other people. This is what needs to be discussed.

If your voted out e.g. a dev. Do they then lose their access to the github? If you control accounts do you then lose access to them? How does the process of this handover to other people work? If they are voted out but no replacement what happens then? I feel this needs to be discussed, wrote down and voted through. If it doesnt pass it's back to discussions for another vote.

These are not difficult questions to answer for personal opinions and discuss. My view is voted out lose it. Simple but then what if someone's not voted through for that role. All scenarios need to be discussed and wrote down publicly of the procedure.
 
Last edited:
Gerrald said:
I define it as if you don't get funds you have lost that role.

Judging by both Eric's and yours comments there is no defined process for handovers which definitely need to be discussed. I can see a time where some are no longer getting voted through, maybe other groups gain control over the voting so funds are shifted to other people. This is what needs to be discussed.

If your voted out e.g. a dev. Do they then lose their access to the github? If you control accounts do you then lose access to them? How does the process of this handover to other people work? If they are voted out but no replacement what happens then? I feel this needs to be discussed, wrote down and voted through. If it doesnt pass it's back to discussions for another vote.

These are not difficult questions to answer for personal opinions and discuss. My view is voted out lose it. Simple but then what if someone's not voted through for that role. All scenarios need to be discussed and wrote down publicly of the procedure.
Click to expand...
No they are not difficult to answer but this is why I asked you the questions because you are saying the funds dictate a firing and the person has to then do XYZ.

Im asking what do you envision? We do handle things now in a trusted manner. How can the DAO fix that problem?

In general I think you need a better understanding of some processes though, as say for myself I am a contributor as a dev, I do not “own” the github account. I would make “suggested” improvements to be handled. In the case of say @fuzzbawls did the removal of pay ever change his handling of the github? No.
Does that mean Fuzz should have given the GitHub to someone during the times of no budget/downvoted proposals? We have to be more careful how things get presented.

I think you glossed over a bit of @Eric_Stanek point of its directing funds, not necessarily their contributions.

If a dev is voted out and no replacements we are stalling ourselves 100% in terms of standards for work to be done. There needs to be a minimum of 3 capable to work and review each other to meet MINIMUM requirements. Thats if we are going with the down vote you are out idea. It puts us in “interesting” places for things to progress.

I think it’s a waste of funds to dictate SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) to a consensus vote. It would make it too much of suggesting and revising to approvals of 2000+ people (or 5 depending on how you tally the votes) lol.

I think we should have things defined to how we operate for when things change yes. Not necessarily because someone is “down voted” vs “voted out”
 
Sorry. The answer is; YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHY EACH MNO VOTED NO. Just because you 'believe' is not good enough for DAO consensus. It works for religions, but not in a DAO. Who nominated your belief to take priority over other's belief?

However, based on your logic, for the PIVX.poker proposal, you want a policy to remove the devs and @Rwenzori , remove their GitHub access, remove their access to the servers, have them hand over existing funds, account access for any socials etc. and put this all into centralized control - of some unelected individual - even when we have no idea why it was voted down. Madness!

Sorry, that's just wrong. Such a policy would create absolute chaos in PIVX.

Further, this is all to solve a problem we don't even have yet, nor have we had for the entire life of PIVX.

I hope you understand the frustration the Community has with your arguments because of this.

I get that you want to be heard, and that is fair, but you HAVE been heard! MANY, MANY times! Yet, YOU are NOT HEARING EVERYONE ELSE!

We have presented solid facts, logic, and rational thought, to explain why such a policy won't work. We've been at it for at least 3.5 years! The votes decide on funding. That's it. Full stop. (https://forum.pivx.org/threads/how-does-the-dao-work.851/)

Anyhow .... Perhaps you should submit a proposal for the time to develop this complex 'hand-over' policy and submit it to the network for approval. Because currently, it falls under no one's responsibility.

Then, assuming it passes, you can submit another proposal to add functionality to the code, to track the reasons for 'NO' votes. However, even if that does pass, it likely will never get implemented, because it will most certainly break privacy, and even then, results will be open to subjective interpretation, and we are back to personal 'beliefs' again.

@Gerrald This is why you were banned from the main Discord; You kept coming back, with the exact same failed arguments, over and over and over, with no rebuttal to facts, logic and rational though presented to you. Further, you never come back with any new supporting information.

The rest of us are working hard to BUILD PIVX. What are you trying to do?
 
Eric_Stanek said:
Sorry. The answer is; YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHY EACH MNO VOTED NO. Just because you 'believe' is not good enough for DAO consensus. It works for religions, but not in a DAO. Who nominated your belief to take priority over other's belief?

However, based on your logic, for the PIVX.poker proposal, you want a policy to remove the devs and @Rwenzori , remove their GitHub access, remove their access to the servers, have them hand over existing funds, account access for any socials etc. and put this all into centralized control - of some unelected individual - even when we have no idea why it was voted down. Madness!

Sorry, that's just wrong. Such a policy would create absolute chaos in PIVX.

Further, this is all to solve a problem we don't even have yet, nor have we had for the entire life of PIVX.

I hope you understand the frustration the Community has with your arguments because of this.

I get that you want to be heard, and that is fair, but you HAVE been heard! MANY, MANY times! Yet, YOU are NOT HEARING EVERYONE ELSE!

We have presented solid facts, logic, and rational thought, to explain why such a policy won't work. We've been at it for at least 3.5 years! The votes decide on funding. That's it. Full stop. (https://forum.pivx.org/threads/how-does-the-dao-work.851/)

Anyhow .... Perhaps you should submit a proposal for the time to develop this complex 'hand-over' policy and submit it to the network for approval. Because currently, it falls under no one's responsibility.

Then, assuming it passes, you can submit another proposal to add functionality to the code, to track the reasons for 'NO' votes. However, even if that does pass, it likely will never get implemented, because it will most certainly break privacy, and even then, results will be open to subjective interpretation, and we are back to personal 'beliefs' again.

@Gerrald This is why you were banned from the main Discord; You kept coming back, with the exact same failed arguments, over and over and over, with no rebuttal to facts, logic and rational though presented to you. Further, you never come back with any new supporting information.

The rest of us are working hard to BUILD PIVX. What are you trying to do?
Click to expand...
There not failed you just don't agree with that view and was banned to even voice a differing opinion. Great show of your Canadian blood there 👍 shut down opposition.

These discussions publicly help!

We need a consensus of procedures.

The example of the github for poker is great. What happens? There is no sole owner of it it's just @Rwenzori ideas and vision. It doesn't mean he should lose access. How does it work? Surely all discussing and writing down this is the standard is best?
 
@Liquid369 what if you were voted out? How would you view it? Maybe thats the starting point of these discussions. To get everyone's views of what they think should happen.
 
Here we go again. I literally just answered your questions and you just came back with the same questions again.

You were banned from the main Discord, for getting louder, and LOUDER, and LOUDER, then getting aggressive and attacking people personally, instead of presenting new facts or logic. You were not banned for having a different view. Pick any view, and I bet there are at least a few with the same view that are still in the main Discord, with zero threat of being banned. So, that shows more failed logic on your part.
 
I want clear procedures of how the dao works wrote up. This will only help pivx structuring how it is run.

I'm trying to get a consensus but you refuse to see another view. You tell me @Eric_Stanek if someone is voted out multiple times and not getting funding, a clear rejection from the dao what should happen?
 
Sorry @Gerrald . You are not worth my time. Pretty certain that's why so few other people want to have discussions with you. It's because you have zero critical thinking skills.

The document you are looking for is called Swarmwise. It has been available since before PIVX was born.
 
If you don't want to discuss that's fine. Your just another masternode voter anyway, was just trying to get a consensus and get everyone speaking but you vote is your own. Same as me and many other people...look how voting has changed recently. Said it would.

The votes control pivx direction.

Funding is what expands pivx so masternode owners should expect some information and creating these procedures can only benefit pivx and show its not a closed group and anyone can join.

Enjoy!
 
Gerrald said:
@Liquid369 what if you were voted out? How would you view it? Maybe thats the starting point of these discussions. To get everyone's views of what they think should happen.
Click to expand...
Voted out would imply that a down vote is a firing, not a reprioritization of funds. I would not be paid and would have to figure out my months funding. I would be out the 50 PIV for a proposal. I would move to a more minimal focus.

Anyone can join PIVX at anytime the barriers to entry is the scrutiny of our Governance, it’s necessary to be prudent, but if a new person was going to submit a proposal, they would read the forum and see how the system goes. The way we operate right now, no one is interested in this kind of stress.
 
Gerrald said:
If you don't want to discuss that's fine. Your just another masternode voter anyway, was just trying to get a consensus and get everyone speaking but you vote is your own. Same as me and many other people...look how voting has changed recently. Said it would.

The votes control pivx direction.

Funding is what expands pivx so masternode owners should expect some information and creating these procedures can only benefit pivx and show its not a closed group and anyone can join.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
The PIVX.poker proposal was to set up a fund to improve the game, through the github. We have made improvements and paid the devs. As stated any funds will be staked and have been used to supply the freeroll system.

The freeroll system is a essentially a faucet and a great way to onboard new users.

I dont understand what the problem is, ive been here for years sticking with a PIVX ONLY application and use case. The proposal is for 5k PIV.
 
Rwenzori said:
The PIVX.poker proposal was to set up a fund to improve the game, through the github. We have made improvements and paid the devs. As stated any funds will be staked and have been used to supply the freeroll system.

The freeroll system is a essentially a faucet and a great way to onboard new users.

I dont understand what the problem is, ive been here for years sticking with a PIVX ONLY application and use case. The proposal is for 5k PIV.
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument like we are having here since Poker is downvoted, that does not make you fired nor the devs right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top