Thanks for your response, @b3n, and for the many DMs from me that you and @JackALaing have responded to regarding this PIP.
As I’ve said, I respect and trust the current PNF team. However, we are all aligned in wanting a system that can be trusted regardless of who is leading PNF in the future. So, from my perspective, this is not about getting comfortable now. It’s more about keeping us comfortable over the next “3-5 years and beyond”.
Why is a complete overhaul of the constitution necessary if the main goal is “to enfranchise more of our community as DAO Voters”?
I will personally help ensure that anyone who wants a vote gets one
The current system for getting a vote does not disenfranchise anyone. To get a vote under the current system, you simply need to commit some time. There are no other barriers. If you can read and respond to this comment, you have the skills to get a vote.
So, I would be willing to create a course and hold a monthly meeting to guide anyone interested through the process of getting a vote. No experience or technical skills are required; just a time commitment. In addition to my willingness to do this, I know other OG voters who would be willing to help to ensure it’s sustainable. So, if anyone wants a vote and is willing to invest a little time, we can ensure they get one.
Getting a vote is too hard, and I don’t want to be doxed
If you disagree with my assertion that anyone can get a vote today, I’d like to understand why. If you answer that the time commitment is too much or that you don’t want to be doxed, those are different than claiming that people are being disenfranchised.
If the actual viewpoints are that the process should be easier and that anonymous voting should be allowed, I get it. Getting my vote took months, and I almost didn’t do it because of the time commitment. I also wasn’t sure I wanted everyone to know my viewpoint because I have strong opinions - as I suspect you now know by now. But again, those reasons are not the same as being disenfranchised. When people are disenfranchised - they don’t have the right to vote. In this case, everyone has the right even if they are not willing or able to invest the time. Or are not willing to be doxed.
Is it about who has the voting power?
So, assuming reason prevails here, you see my logic as to why nobody is actually being disenfranchised. And why I’m questioning the reasoning behind a push to overhaul the Constitution and voting process so radically.
Of course, a more automated process that scales would be necessary if the objectives are less about enfranchising people and more about the opinions that more voters are needed, or that we need voting terms, or credentialing should be revised. If that’s the root reasoning behind this proposal, let’s discuss it without the propaganda.
Your question: Do I have a preferred solution in mind? The short answer is no. But that’s because I’m still trying to determine this proposal’s primary objective and the reasoning and motives behind it.
The “disenfranchised” narrative doesn’t hold up to fundamental reasoning. Plus, using that word in this context minimizes its true meaning, which makes me a bit agitated. We don’t need more content on the web that future LLMs will use to minimize the contextual meaning of something like what it means to be genuinely disenfranchised. But that’s my emotions - back to reasoning.
As I’ve expressed, this proposal is too complex and conflates too many things. So, perhaps you could state the primary objective, and I can try to respond to your question about how I think it could be operated or expressed in governance.
So, what is the primary objective of this proposal?
If you can answer the question above objectively in a sentence, I’ll gladly share my suggestions. Perhaps the main objective is one of the following:
- Make it easier for people to get a vote
- Limit the control of the small group of existing voters
- Remove current voters who are no longer active
- Empower PNF with more control over the voting process
- Automate the voting process
Whatever it is, let’s make it clear so everyone can weigh in. I know nobody wants people to be “disenfranchised” from understanding what this proposal is really about. 