Per the “Nomination of Another” rules, if 2 other community members nominate these potential nominees with me then they become official candidates that Kunta and I will then contact to confirm their desire to be a candidate. If they decline, they are removed as official candidates, if they confirm, they remain a candidate.
Per the “Eligibility Check” and “Eligibility Grace Period” rules, Ambassadors & TSB staff & SC & AB & Delegates may be a candidate if they commit to resigning from their role no later than 30 days after winning an election.
Just wanted to say a big thanks for the nomination
Also Hi to @DAO I believe we have crossed paths before, a while back.
I would be happy to answer any questions you have, you can also visit my profile (I updated my info recently)
Per the “Nomination of Another” rules, if 2 other community members nominate these potential nominees with me then they become official candidates that Kunta and I will then contact to confirm their desire to be a candidate. If they decline, they are removed as official candidates, if they confirm, they remain a candidate.
Per the “Eligibility Check” and “Eligibility Grace Period” rules, Ambassadors & TSB staff & SC & AB & Delegates may be a candidate if they commit to resigning from their role no later than 30 days after winning an election.
@Lanzer Thank you for this honor, but unfortunately I will not be able to devote enough time to such a position, because I have other employment.
Did I understand correctly that the participants of this forum (including me) can vote for some candidates?
Thank you very much, @Lanzer, for the reference, but I am currently focused on developing the Zero-to-Hero Course, preparing it with exclusive material for teaching The Sandbox Game Maker and VoxEdit. For this reason, I will not be applying for the “Community Council”.
Just one question, how many more councils do we need? I’ve already lost track of how many boards we have.
Okay, thank you Dankoyy for giving it your consideration.
With @DAO & @Kaiten and myself nominating @DrMetaverso , he meets the 3 person “Nomination of Another” rules and becomes an official candidate for CC. @theKuntaMC and I will contact him for him to confirm or decline.
I completely agree that the SIP process is there to let the community decide if something should move forward or not. My point was more about ensuring that every perspective has a clear way to be expressed during the vote, especially for those who might feel they missed the earlier discussions.
Including an option like “We should not have a “SIP-X”” or “Against” could definitely help address this concern. It ensures that anyone who disagrees with the concept itself has a way to voice that, rather than feeling forced to abstain or stay silent.
While this approach might slow down some processes slightly, it could also strengthen trust and participation in the DAO. Ensuring that all decisions have stronger, more participatory backing can lead to better community engagement and long-term support for initiatives that may not be as aligned with community sentiment.
Regarding the suggestion that if the “Against this SIP” option reaches 50%, the proposal does not pass, I would also like to ask for thoughts on the use of a simple majority (plurality) system, where the option with the highest percentage wins. This seems to be the simplest approach. However, if we were to implement either of these rules, I believe it should be discussed in advance to ensure clarity and alignment within the community.
The discussion period is being extended by 2 weeks along with the nomination period, from Feb 5 to Feb 19. That gives us another 3 weeks to expand the conversation here and identify the most qualified candidates.
To provide an oportunity for extended community feedback, we will be hosting a X Spaces show about this SIP next week. Stay tuned for details.
When a person votes “abstain” they are casting vote (to help reach qourum) but they are basically saying they do not favor the SIP in its current condition (on this SIP or others).
This would be the options for this CC SIP:
Candidate A
Candidate B
Candidate C
None of the candidate = “no”
Abstain = “don’t know”
Is that unclear?
Tagging @KCL too, since they raised concerns as well
Having both “Abstain” (I do not know) + Having voting “against this SIPs” makes sense:
abstain for those who does not know to whom they want to give their vote but still support this SIP.
Against if people does not want this SIP.
For the against it should be bound to >50%. the reason is that a minority of the community should not block the majority to have a community council.
example:
Candidate A 20%
Candidate B 20%
Candidate C 20%
Abstain 19%
Against 21%
==> SIP is rejected while 79% voted for candidate or abstain.
I am only from that opinion on that specific SIP as the initial question as wether you want a CC or not (i.e binary choice) was not presented to the community before.
At least for me is clear🥲I even checked my old school dictionary.
While “None of the Candidates” and “Abstain” appear to serve different purposes on the surface, they are functionally redundant in this specific context (voting for candidates). Both options reflect a lack of support for the listed candidates, but neither offers a clear distinction in intent. If someone chooses “None of the Candidates,” they are inherently rejecting the available options. Similarly, an “Abstain” vote in this scenario would imply neutrality or indecision, but it still contributes to reaching quorum without actively endorsing any candidate.
On the other hand, an “Against this SIP” option is essential (imo) because it explicitly opposes the proposal as a whole, not just the listed candidates. This provides a clear avenue for those who disagree with the concept or framework of the SIP itself, which for me “Abstain” does not accommodate.
Not completely true. I can for example split my vote between 1 candidate 50% and 50% abstain to leave a chance to other candidates. Or, decide to not use the VP given by TSB and put 2 millions VP in abstain and only vote with my VP or what was deleagted to me. that would still aloow quorum and do not mean that I want this SIP to be rejected.
If we have an “against this SIP” option and it has a 50% threshold for killing the SIP, what if people select it who just don’t support any of the listed candidates?
“Aginst this SIP” and “None of these candidates” are somewhat redundan in that they’re both “no votes,” but the outcome could be different.
