Hey @b3n I’ve spent the last few days going through the expansive changes being proposed by this PIP.
I’ve shared some of my questions and concerns with you and @JackALaing. With this comment, I will start making my questions visible to the community.
Of all the things we vote on, changes to the constitution are the most important in my opinion. So, I’ll start my comments/questions there. I’ll also hold off on my other thoughts for now in hopes of keeping the discussion focused on one issue at a time.
The changes are not just updates to the constitution—they are a rewrite. Further, some changes violate the original (read: existing) constitution.
8.1. This Constitution may be amended according to Majority Approval in the PIP > process, unless otherwise specified in ‘Immutability’ and ‘Undo’ below.
Immutability
8.2. No Constitution amended to modify clauses or definitions marked with a ‡ will be accepted under any circumstance except per 8.6.
8.3. Constitutions amended to introduce a ‡ will be accepted if they have first received Supermajority Approval in the PIP process.
8.4. No Constitution amended to modify clauses or definitions marked with a †, or to introduce a †, will be accepted unless the proposed amendment has first received Supermajority Approval in the PIP process.
For starters, the Immutability section has been - well, muted. This is the only violation necessary to invalidate the changes per the existing constitution. But there are multiple others. To keep focused, I won’t detail the others now because the main point is that we don’t need a constitution if we can rewrite it at any time.
4.10. The Foundation shall serve as a custodial entity for Pocket Network, deferring decision-making to the Council in all cases except Material Adverse Exception Events (MAEEs), i.e. crises resulting from incomplete contracts and unforeseen events.
My second point is that the current constitution does not appear to be linked to in the Pocket documents or on the website anymore. It used to be linked in the documents, but it seems all those links have been removed. Perhaps this was an oversight and maybe it feels like a minor point, but it kind of seems like the updates are being assumed before a vote has happened. This is arguably another violation of the current constitution.
This is also true for information about the current voter paths. They are no longer in the documentation. So, anything that links to details about our current process is now a dead link. If someone wants to compare the existing process to get a vote to the proposed method, all they will find is the newly proposed process. For example, if you visit this post on the messari site, which discusses our current system, you’ll notice all the links are dead. Again, this feels like a decision has been made without a vote.
6.2. PIPs will not be permissible if they contain multiple new specifications that could feasibly be divided into separate proposals without losing their meaning. This is in place to prevent omnibus proposals, whereby unpopular proposals are pushed through by bundling them with popular proposals.
So, I’m not just pointing out issues without suggesting a resolution; here is my suggestion.
- Make changes to the constitution with amendments - like the current constitution suggests
- Keep the changes focused on credentialing and reputation
There are too many significant changes conflated into this one proposal. I’ve spent over 12 hours reviewing the changes and considering their implications, and I still don’t feel like I fully understand them.