Voted out? What happens next...

Could be @Rwenzori that someone was trying (and failed) to make room for another proposal. We don't know. We can't know. If we don't know the specifc reason, we can't trigger a policy based on a specific reason.

So, until we can know the specific reason, these discussions are a waste of time.

@Liquid369:
For the sake of argument like we are having here since Poker is downvoted, that does not make you fired nor the devs right?

Ye, that's my view. I'm just wanting get all this documented and discussed publicly as you are sounding like you wouldn't know what to do? We discussed about when you were voted down and no funding. It's a shock. People dont need that. So if you know that all of a sudden you could be voted out, the procedures of this change. Which would hopefully help with reports also. There could even be a handover paid period but this is what I'm trying to discuss if another person was voted through and other wasnt. Half that proposal goes to the handover guy. I dont know! Just discussing.

No one wants to be working then next month their out with no money.

@Eric_Stanek:
Correct @Rwenzori .... we don't understand the problem. But, @Gerrald thinks the NO votes should shut down the PIVX.poker project and hand it off to some unknown person.

Don't put words in my mouth. The pivx poker proposal was for extra funding. In my view it's @Rwenzori baby and he asks for funding when he needs it. It's a great thing for pivx how it is. Just needs more attention to marketing which we are lacking.

@Gerrald:
Ye, that's my view. I'm just wanting get all this documented and discussed publicly as you are sounding like you wouldn't know what to do? We discussed about when you were voted down and no funding. It's a shock. People dont need that. So if you know that all of a sudden you could be voted out, the procedures of this change. Which would hopefully help with reports also. There could even be a handover paid period but this is what I'm trying to discuss if another person was voted through and other wasnt. Half that proposal goes to the handover guy. I dont know! Just discussing.

No one wants to be working then next month their out with no money.

Its not that there are not processes, but its the situation of what if the person thats being selected as the hand off person is voted out? How do we handle that? How do we select that person? Im just trying to gauge whats your expectation is all and you clarified a bit more this time.

Give us a bit more to work with as it seems you’ve thought about it a bit more than you seem to have lead on in the initial post.

The other portion to this is, again I don’t see the DAO as the one who hires and fires, they direct funds. So if we’re not willing to fund something it should not become you are fired! Indeed not being paid is a shock, and its hard to say to someone you are fired, but you will need to work for half pay another month for a handoff? What about them figuring out their wages for their bills? Could you go with a 50% reduction overnight and needing to transition someone while looking for the other 50%?

MNOs don't vote NO, to hand over decisions to be "In your view". They vote NO to not fund the proposal.

@Gerrald:
Don't put words in my mouth. The pivx poker proposal was for extra funding. In my view it's @Rwenzori baby and he asks for funding when he needs it. It's a great thing for pivx how it is. Just needs more attention to marketing which we are lacking.

Could we say that PIVX is also, Jeffery, Kitty, Leacy, Fuzz and everyone elses baby, and they ask for funding to progress PIVX as needed?

The last year has been not good?

Also you said in my reply thats your view can you clarify what view it is? Cause I took it at my first post as firing @Rwenzori then to @Eric_Stanek its putting words in. Clarify so there is no further issues on that lol

@Liquid369:
Its not that there are not processes, but its the situation of what if the person thats being selected as the hand off person is voted out? How do we handle that? How do we select that person? Im just trying to gauge whats your expectation is all and you clarified a bit more this time.

Give us a bit more to work with as it seems you’ve thought about it a bit more than you seem to have lead on in the initial post.

The other portion to this is, again I don’t see the DAO as the one who hires and fires, they direct funds. So if we’re not willing to fund something it should not become you are fired! Indeed not being paid is a shock, and its hard to say to someone you are fired, but you will need to work for half pay another month for a handoff? What about them figuring out their wages for their bills? Could you go with a 50% reduction overnight and needing to transition someone while looking for the other 50%?

Great questions! This is what I'm trying to get discussions on. Documented so there's no confusion. It will happen eventually. People sell, people don't vote, new people arrive with differing views. We've all got to remember were the start. I want us to set how pivx is using the dao. No one wants a shock.

We are not a cooperation, we are not a business, we are PIVX a dao. Let's set out what a dao is and what we are to expand and show the world.

@Liquid369:
Could we say that PIVX is also, Jeffery, Kitty, Leacy, Fuzz and everyone elses baby, and they ask for funding to progress PIVX as needed?

The last year has been not good?

Also you said in my reply thats your view can you clarify what view it is? Cause I took it at my first post as firing @Rwenzori then to @Eric_Stanek its putting words in. Clarify so there is no further issues on that lol

No because they have roles specified for that. @Rwenzori went out of his way to get it going. Kitty can never be voted out of labs as that is his. He can get refused funding but his work and team speak for themselves. I see alot more activity labs side than core. But how this happens is what I am trying to get documented. @Rwenzori asked for funding to expand pivx poker which benefits pivx. That is his.

@Eric_Stanek:
MNOs don't vote NO, to hand over decisions to be "In your view". They vote NO to not fund the proposal.

The proposal is for pivx direction. So funding is seperate direction is what your trying to say? If someone puts in a proposal and it's constantly voted down they can still take that role your saying?

What if some amazing expert C++ developer wants to code for PIVX. Let's say he is financially independent, but he does ask for funds as a sign of respect and also to not undermine the other devs who ask for funds. If he is voted down, he may decide to work for free until it is clear why he was voted down. During that time, his commits may be reviewed and merged and deployed. Later he learns some MNO just didn't like his jokes. But, instead of working this out, he is supposed to act like he's been fired?

This is an edge case, but there are TONS of such edge cases. I would argue every one is an edge case.

Again, we can't know how what the NO vote reasons are, so we can't act on them.

The developer can resubmit 100 times, paying the 50 PIV fee each time if they want. Eventually the problem MNO who didn't like his jokes may realize bad jokes are a smallmproce to pay for PIVX having an expert developer on the team.

Also remember.... such a decision process of NO votes causing a policy or procedure to be triggered, removes power from the MNOs. For example, maybe I want to send a signal that I am unhappy with a proposal. But, I do want it to pass. I can no longer send a few NO votes, because if others do the same, the consequences may be far greater than just not getting paid. So, it undermines the system we have in place, that works and has stood the test of time.

@Eric_Stanek:
What if some amazing expert C++ developer wants to code for PIVX. Let's say he is financially independent, but he does ask for funds as a sign of respect and also to not undermine the other devs who ask for funds. If he is voted down, he may decide to work for free until it is clear why he was voted down. During that time, his commits may be reviewed and merged and deployed. Later he learns some MNO just didn't like his jokes. But, instead of working this out, he is supposed to act like he's been fired?

This is an edge case, but there are TONS of such edge cases. I would argue every one is an edge case.

Again, we can't know how what the NO vote reasons are, so we can't act on them.

The developer can resubmit 100 times, paying the 50 PIV fee each time if they want. Eventually the problem MNO who didn't like his jokes may realize bad jokes are a smallmproce to pay for PIVX having an expert developer on the team.

Also remember.... such a decision process of NO votes causing a policy or procedure to be triggered, removes power from the MNOs. For example, maybe I want to send a signal that I am unhappy with a proposal. But, I do want it to pass. I can no longer send a few NO votes, because if others do the same, the consequences may be far greater than just not getting paid. So, it undermines the system we have in place, that works and has stood the test of time.

Great to see you actually thinking! This is what I'm wanting to get documented. What if's! It's not an attack on anyone it's getting things documented.

In short, the current system has zero subjectivity. We absolutely want that. A failed proposal means no funding. Full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Any attempt to add steps to be triggered by a failed proposal adds unlimited amounts of subjectivity. Everyone will have their own view. Because no procedure we can come up with, will cover all scenarios. Further, they will affect how proposals are written, to undermine such procedures or rules.

As well, even if we come up with some policy, it can't be enforced. Why? Our mission States "Freedom is everything." for a reason.

Again, this discussion is trying to solve a problem we don't have, but it will absolutely create new problems we don't have now.

@Gerrald:
No because they have roles specified for that. @Rwenzori went out of his way to get it going. Kitty can never be voted out of labs as that is his. He can get refused funding but his work and team speak for themselves. I see alot more activity labs side than core. But how this happens is what I am trying to get documented. @Rwenzori asked for funding to expand pivx poker which benefits pivx. That is his.

You do realize they’re mainly the same teams? Work is between both groups (especially development). Labs has a different structure and allowance for work than Core. Core is the chain, Labs has services that use the chain, which means one can do work faster than the other.

Labs has an entirely different focus and aim than Core to compare is apples to oranges.

@Eric_Stanek:
In short, the current system has zero subjectivity. We absolutely want that. A failed proposal means no funding. Full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Any attempt to add steps to be triggered by a failed proposal adds unlimited amounts of subjectivity. Everyone will have their own view. Because no procedure we can come up with, will cover all scenarios. Further, they will affect how proposals are written, to undermine such procedures or rules.

As well, even if we come up with some policy, it can't be enforced. Why? Our mission States "Freedom is everything." for a reason.

Again, this discussion is trying to solve a problem we don't have, but it will absolutely create new problems we don't have now.

There you go. There's your view. If someone is voted out it means nothing. Wasn't that hard? They just are not getting paid. This is not how I imagined the dao.

@Liquid369:
You do realize they’re mainly the same teams? Work is between both groups (especially development). Labs has a different structure and allowance for work than Core. Core is the chain, Labs has services that use the chain, which means one can do work faster than the other.

Labs has an entirely different focus and aim than Core to compare is apples to oranges.

Yes I do. I've spoke to others and they prefer the structure of labs. Maybe it's time for a change over at core? Hardly anything I can see on github happens.

@Gerrald:
Yes I do. I've spoke to others and they prefer the structure of labs. Maybe it's time for a change over at core? Hardly anything I can see on github happens.

It seems based on your reply you do not understand. Labs and Core developers are the exact same. How do you change up Core?

Side note: we are putting out referral bonus polls on twitter for developers that join and contribute to PIVX.

Hey guys! Sorry been a busy evening. Going to add my final feedback here(may have already been mentioned)

A proposal is merely the flow of funds. The only time it would be used alongside being “fired” is if the person is malicious, not doing their job etc. Then payments stop by people voting No and admins do their part by removing their roles so that malicious user does not tarnish the PIVX brand.

Let me use myself as an example. Prior to the budget change I had a proposal to fund me handling system administration and support. This was downvoted. The reason for this was a mutual agreement that more important things regarding labs needed to be funded, I was not fired, infact I continued to volunteer and provide my services until university became a priority. My role was never removed.

It’s the same thing if an exchange proposal was downvoted it doesn’t mean I will suddenly stop pursuing the exchange. Maybe I get a better deal or a free listing.

Proposal = flow of funds. I think giving more power to it is chaos.

Let’s keep building ;)

Goodnight guys!

There is a level of MNO control that has served the PIVX DAO well since 2016. That is, MNO votes decide if a proposal is funded or not. Changing it to mean someone is 'fired' etc. would add significant power to MNOs. That power could very easily be abused. It therefore adds significant risk. Remember, this discussion is trying to solve a problem that has not yet existed. So, why spend time and focus on it, when at best, it adds risk?

Further, Borris has been trying to understand the DAO for at least 3.5 years. As an MNO, if he still doesn't understand it, then the root cause is pretty obvious and out of anyone's control to resolve.

My view of how the dao should be run differs. It does not mean its wrong just out numbered view currently. Only way to see who's view works is if people get voted down multiple times and see if they carry on working. No funding, most people don't work defacto fired/removed.

@Gerrald:
Great to see you actually thinking! This is what I'm wanting to get documented. What if's! It's not an attack on anyone it's getting things documented.

Well from my POV, there was enough budget this time around to fund the poker proposal. I know the deal and that's why I made the proposal so long and cheap relative to the budget.

I just never thought the 5k PIV would be make or break every month. 😬

Anyways we have the freerolls ready to go, we just need to step up the marketing efforts. The funds will remain staking until further notice or we get enough for a MN, so we can say the freerolls are supplied by a MN which is a nice thing imo.