TL-DR:
I lean toward YES:
- The proposed system is the interpretation of various community requests.
- The system is not complex, in the sense of it being obfuscated.
- Its complexity is the consequence of the community requirements.
What I don’t like:
- Not all paths to a vote seem obvious (@Jinx 's case) we need o iterate here
- The approach to this bundle PIP is messy.
And I think that this holds some truth:
But at the same time I don’t want to waste the effort done to this point and enter into an eternal debate around the system itself.
There is no optimal solution to this problem, we must settle at some point.
On the community requests
Through my time in the Pocket ecosystem I heard many times that changes in the voting system were needed. A vast number of reasons were given and many topics were debated, from them I can recall:
- Giving token holder weight in voting. If someone has a lot of money in Pocket then s/he should have a lot of decision power (plutocracy).
- The builders should have more voting power because they actually build the protocol, they are the only ones that should decide (technocracy).
- The voters cannot remain for ever, there are a lot people with voting power that is not invested anymore and do not participate in the community, yet their votes are still valuable (deprecation of voting power).
- The original members and important community members should have a greater voting power (vesting? leader culture? not sure how to call this ).
- I should not give up my privacy to earn a vote. Many are in crypto for its privacy premise yet our voting system requires one to be doxed (more privacy).
While I can recall these topics from informal chats, I do not remember a real discussion (in the forum) of any of those (maybe plutocracy), and I’m sure that none of these features ever went to vote.
The PNF took the burden (wrongly or not) of making triage and bundle the most relevant requested changes into a single voting system. This might be wrong, because they decided unilaterally which of them to include, but reallity is that the community never formally discussed and voted over any of them. The PNF is there to do the job that nobody wants to do, they are the stewards of the Pocket Network and its not illogical to think that they would want to create a better system that responds to the community sentiment, whether or not a formal request for any change was made.
I don’t blame them for doing this proposal, on the contrary I thank them for giving this subject a real entity and propose actual actionable changes.
On complexity
I don’t feel that the new voting method is complex or obfuscated, its a rather simple solution to a subset of the community requests.
Using a house based system with per-house weights is not a bad approach. I would inverse the burden of the proof here and ask for a simpler implementation of a system that is able to handle all (implicit) community requests described in the previous point.
On 1-Person-1-Vote
In my opinion there are two aspects around this:
- 1-person means that a single human cannot hold more than one voting entity, which is respected (as much as possible) in the current and proposed voting models
- 1 vote meaning that any two humans (without any other feature but that of being humans) will have the same vote weight, which is directly incompatible with the community requests.
This problem is the consequence of lack of clear discussion, the PNF concluded that the community wanted a weighted system. This is not a bad conclusion if you have followed the numerous chat conversations, yet many members are now against it.
This is solved with proper discussion. I said it before, community chats are not official sources and any discussion there should not be a valid source for the community sentiment. If you want to be taken seriously, come to the forum, take the time to write a full post and give proper shape to your ideas. Maybe there is some degree of blame in PNF for not ignoring chats, but I chat users are very noisy…
On constitutional change
I think that the changes are not that distruptive, at least in the diff provided by @JackALaing I see that they are only things that need to change for better working of the proposed system.