When a large group of influential voters does vote in a surprising direction without addressing it publicly (on the forum), it creates room for speculation - I suspect that’s what’s going on here. I don’t think there are any reasons to point fingers, but the DAO deserves an explanation as to why a voting block has come out against someone they proclaim has done “a helluva job.” I would urge voters to use the tools provided to them to explain their position.
If we assume positive intent, we can look at the merits of the argument.
- Lack of technical expertise has affected strategic decisions - I have no basis for refuting this claim, but there aren’t examples provided to support this claim. I would like to see examples of where @b3n’s lack of technical expertise has caused the Foundation to make poor decisions. If this didn’t fall on @b3n, then we need to think about whether he would make the same decisions as prior directors.
- Board Observer possessing no actual power - At face value, this argument holds water, but I posit that board observer seats can be extremely valuable/effective if used correctly. However, most view it as a passive role, where the observer doesn’t feel empowered to share their expertise or weigh in on decisions. I would like to hear from the observer whether they weighed in and then were ignored.
- Lack of Technical Advocate - I agree with this statement, but may disagree that this is a function of PNF. In any organization, the functions without advocates with a voice and power tend to underperform. I, for one, would support additional technical leadership at PNF, but excluding @b3n from the director role does seem misaligned with the objectives laid out in PIP-26.
- (continued) Taking this a step further, I don’t believe that the technical person needs to be a Foundation Director to be able to do their job. Many people are extremely effective at their jobs, and they are not board members at their companies. While being on the board gives you the final say, it isn’t the end-all-be-all of executing. Based on the above mandate, the person should be an expert in DAO operations and amplify the work of the community, as opposed to giving technical direction.
Further, there does appear to be a risk of not putting @b3n in this position. The time lost in searching for a technical unicorn who wants to be on a foundation instead of building a product could set the Foundation behind for months or even quarters. A timing risk is a risk I’m not willing to take in a market such as this.
This situation feels like one party paying the price for the sins of others. I fail to see how @b3n couldn’t deliver on the above mandate. If the mandate has changed, then the points could be valid. If the mandate needs to change, then we need to rethink many things and punt on this decision.