Can we get any clarity beyond āsummerā being a realistic target for .12 and if we are within days, weeks or months of that?
1 Like
will try to chase the info!
2 Likes
4 Likes
Hi everyone,
Thank you all for your submissions, theyāre all great!
I will create the SIP along with a comparative table and share it for discussion within the next two weeks.
Timeline:
- Discussion: June 25th ā July 9th
- Voting: July 9th ā 23rd
Version 0.12 of the Game Maker is planned for release in July and so will be available to build the experience on.
GĆ©raldine
4 Likes
Hey @Geraldine
How many submissions ?
Once the vote (9th-23rd July) will be done, the experience should be ready to launch at this date or there is an other deadline for the experience delivery ?
I submitted one, if you have any question, let me know.
1 Like
We have more than 6 submissions at the moment, from individuals and studios.
There is no strict release deadline from the DAO team but no later than end of Q3 2025 seem reasonable - timeline should be detailed in each proposal.
3 Likes
Hello Geraldine,
As I said in my email, i post the discuss here.
your message to my submission :
and my answer with citation i referred in the email
:
1 Like
Hey @sebga thanks for the transparency here.
To be honest, I didnāt realized that you were planning to submit the proposal yourself, otherwise, I would have flagged it earlier to avoid any confusion. It seems other community members also missed that.
That said, I do want to gently remind you (and others reading this), @delegates have agreed to abide by the Code of Conduct (you can find here) stating that delegates must avoid any conflicts of interest, and that includes pushing forward proposals.
I know it can feel frustrating, especially when the intention is good.
Okay.
Regarding SIPs, this is normal.
Here, itās participation in a project, in a call for tenders.
Refusing to participate in a project, in a call for tenders, means that a verified delegate cannot participate in any project; if their name appears, itās a conflict of interest.
This encourages secrecy and not transparency, in my opinion.
How can you maintain an interest in the DAO if youāre excluded from community affairs?
Itās a form of punishment for people who get involved without compensation, and I sincerely believe it will have a negative impact on transparency.
A system that prevents the delegate in question from using the VP allocated to them by TSB would perhaps be more appropriate for this type of situation.
1 Like
Sebga ā This may have been a product of simple misinterpretation.
No one on our admin team realized the quoted text from you just above was an implication that you intended to submit a proposal. If we did, we wouldāve made it clear then that an RFP (request for proposal) always leads to a SIP (which delegates cannot author).
It seems maybe you misinterpreted the ādelegates cannot submit proposalsā rule, and we misinterpreted your forum message expressing intent to submit.
You certainly put a lot of effort in your submission, and this is all very unfortunate.
I am happy jump on a call if you wanna chat, anytime, although thereās really no change in course that can be taken.
1 Like
I see your point hereā¦
Although the clear counterargument is that delegates, with their high VP, have more influence over community affairs than most. From the the SIP Idea stage all the way through voting, the voices of delegates are often the most influential.
1 Like
Please @Geraldine @theKuntaMC , I respect the 3 points of Conflict of Interest :
- I do not submit a SIP
- Iām fully transparent
- Iāll do not vote on this futur vote (with the 2M VP, iāll vote with my own VP)
Please, rest reassued I also respect this important point :
1 Like
I have no doubts that youāre committed to the spirit of the code of conduct.
I think this was just a misunderstanding. It seems maybe you misinterpreted the ādelegates cannot submit proposalsā rule (as it also applies to RFPs), and we misinterpreted your forum message expressing your intent to submit.
3 Likes
Iām a big supporter of the current delegate rules. Iām starting to see something emerge in the number of things a delegate must stay away from vs the toll of continued service as a delegate.
I donāt think either side is doing anything wrong. Canāt quite describe it yet, but Iām starting to see tension in the opportunities a normal SandFam has vs the Delegate code of conduct.
3 Likes
Hi Lanzer,
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Iām also a strong supporter of the code of conduct and established rules, but here weāre breaking the rules.
This is a situation that bothers me.
Thatās why Iām involved in the DAO and Iāll remain so, but not as a āVerifiedā Delegate.
I will most likely be leaving this position very soon.
Iāve given myself a few days to think about it, but this seems to be the right decision.
I was very happy to participate in the experiment as a verified delegate, but perhaps this is the signal to step down.
Yeah, itās an interesting position to be in. On the one hand, if you allow it to happen where delegates can be involved and proposals, no matter whether theyāre RFP from the DAO admin team or an SIP, you open the door for rivalries and revenge and bitterness and different things that affect how a delegate might vote in a biased way.
Iām not sure what the solution is. Why should we force delegates to not be able to participate, is it really worth it? I donāt know if I have a good answer, but Iām starting to see that tension emerge.
What are your thoughts?
1 Like
My opinion on the subject:
The rules already exist and they are good.
This case is included in the code of conduct.
This is a case where there is a conflict of interest and not a SIP (the difference is highlighted in the document), and in this case, the delegate concerned was asked not to vote.
Everything is already written and regulates this type of situation.
I find it dangerous for the DAOās balance to refuse to apply what is written, for several reasons:
-1. If the rules are not applied, there is no point in expecting trust from users.
-2. Not applying this rule will encourage people to hide their connection.
-3 it discourages good will
Thatās what I think about all this.
2 Likes
It remains unclear how weāre ābreaking the rules.ā
But youāre welcome to expand on the notion.
An RFP leads to a SIPā¦ and delegates cannot author SIPs.
Thus, delegates cannot respond to RFPs.
Whether or not this is the best possible rule structure isnāt my point. But those are the way the rules are written right now.
Iām sure many in the community would hate to see you step down, but if you think thatās your best move, it will of course be respected.
But I still think weāre just misunderstanding each each other (and perhaps the rules).
1 Like