(INVALID) PIP-38: Proposal for Pocket Network Governance and Economic Reform (REVISED)

[shane]

Hi @o_rourke,

Thank you for your proposal. However, in its current form, it does not meet the requirements for a constitutional change. As previously outlined by @JackALaing, we need clear, precise wording for any proposed amendments..

@JackALaing

As the interim director, it will be @shane’s duty to see these changes are approved properly as outlined above.

For an example of the clarity that should be provided for amendments, see here .

Your proposal currently contains “example” changes rather than the actual wording that would be implemented. While you mentioned consulting legal counsel for proper phrasing after the proposal passes, this approach conflicts with PNF’s bylaws. Voters need to know the exact final wording before casting their votes.

@o_rourke

Good call out - I’ve added these sections and a couple more for the Articles and Constitution. These are just examples but will consult legal for proper phrasing if the proposal is passed.

For reference, please see the example of a properly formatted amendment proposal here, and how Jack implemented changes via a GitHub PR: CREDS Upgrade Focused by JackALaing · Pull Request #10 · pokt-network/governance · GitHub

I suggest revising your proposal to include the exact wording you intend to use for each change. The current version, even if it receives votes, would not be considered valid. Implementing these changes without following proper procedures could put any current PNF director at risk.

Unfortunately I was traveling when this proposal was posted, so was I was not able to review and provide feedback until today. To ensure we proceed correctly, I recommend consulting legal counsel and resubmitting the proposal with the final, precise wording for each proposed change.

This approach will help us maintain governance integrity while still addressing the desired changes through the proper channels.