A reading from the book of rooster:
During last weeks BG meeting, Karl’s emphasis on the importance of a robust and healthy defection mechanism resonated a lot with me. Personally I’ve found myself in a number of organizations that left me less than satisfied with the decision making process, demotivated, and ultimately to become a problem in the org, undermining authority as a natural outflow of my want to get things done in a way that make sense to me.
My point is that there are plenty of capable people who end up being a detriment to the group because they feel unheard or bossed around by people they see as less capable. At the very least, there is a ton of productivity left on the table.
Quick review of the current gov proposal’s removal section:
Any DAO Council Member may be removed from duty via the following process:
Performance review and recommendation by the DAO Council; a vote would take place to remove an individual; a majority vote is required to move the vote for removal to the community.
Post the recommendation for removal to the forum for community discussion and review (RFC).
After the recommendation is approved informally by the community, a two-thirds supermajority snapshot vote of the DAO, with a quorum of 10%+ of PHONON (from circulating supply).
The DAO Council may be dissolved via the following process:
The community shall post the recommendation for dissolution to the forum for community discussion and review (RFC).
After the recommendation is approved informally by the community, a two-thirds supermajority snapshot vote of the DAO, with a quorum of 10%+ of PHONON (from circulating supply).
Upon dissolution of the DAO Council, the community shall organize new elections per this governance framework or provide a new process for governance.
This does not inspire joy.
If 2/3rds of the DAO has voted to toss you out, in the words of Kurt Osiander, you fucked up a long time ago.
I’m not sure why we would wind up at “2/3rds supermajority” as the threshold for removal, except “that’s how the US government does it”, but if you want to get really good at something, the trick isn’t to copy those who suck.
Think of all the people who don’t get into politics because they don’t want to risk winding up in the service of cunts. How much of America’s governance potential is being left on the table? I remember being like 12 and writing an essay that asked if Bush and Gore were really the top two most qualified people to lead the country. I was a weird kid…
Conclusion here is that this isn’t partisan politics. We aren’t divvying up the spoils of the grand theft that is taxation and slinging influence to fund coke binges and hooker parties. Maybe one day…
For now, it is absurd that someone who has drawn the ire of more than half of this community of gifted weirdos would still hold power.
Maybe as the community changes, the governance needs change too, but at present I will not vote for a structure that is calcified by default. Change the thresholds to 1/3rd of the council and half of the quorum and I might feel a little better about it.
Open to discussion always, and best,
Reddest Rooster
Boom. I’m not sure why we would wind up at “2/3rds supermajority” as the threshold for removal, except “that’s how the US government does it”, but if you want to get really good at something, the trick isn’t to copy those who suck.