VDP-51 Stewardship election [counter proposal]

[theobtl]

@Max_Unfried

I do like certain steps in the proposal. However I feel that WG members should have a stronger say in the Steward Onboarding and Off-boarding. It should not only be up to VitaCore. […] In general we should aim at strengthening the WG and Community, so that they can hold VitaCore and Stewards accountable, and not monopolizing powers in VitaCore.

Couldn’t agree more

@Max_Unfried

Re Heavy knowledge skewing: With this argument we should be against token votes and fundamentals of DAOs.

Good point, but also because token-weighted voting is quite a suboptimal process that is not meritocratic at all by default.

@m_marinova

Regarding knowledge skewing, I would assume it’s best that the WG members of longevity would vote for longevity steward, and same for tokenomics, governance, etc. and not across WGs.

That makes a lot of sense to me. I believe we should include this here or, if this proposal does not pass, consider this detail for VDP-36 or a future governance amendment. There are several practical issues to resolve, though:

If only the members of a specific working group are allowed to vote, how should we deal with smaller working groups (such as tokenomics or governance) where there are only 1-2 people who’s main affilliation is that working group and a handful more people who’s secondary affiliation is that working group?

One way could be to play with voting weights, e.g.

• any working group member who’s main affilliation is with that working group has a 5x voting weight
• any working group member who’s secondary affilliation is with that working group has a 1x voting weight
• any working group member who’s main and other affilliations are not in that working group, does not have a voting weight but has the right to raise criticism and receive a public response

What do you think about that definition?