# DFINITY Foundation’s vote on Governance proposal #80970 (“Spam proposal”) and #86639 ("Temperature Check") **URL:** \ **Category:** Developers\ **Created:** [October 25, 2022, 9:14pm UTC](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/dfinity-foundation-s-vote-on-governance-proposal-80970-spam-proposal-and-86639-temperature-check/16156 "2022-10-25T21:14:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 24
**Author:** ![diegop](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex023/user_avatar/forum.dfinity.org/diegop/32/569_2.png) [@diegop](https://forum.dfinity.org/u/diegop)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2022, 12:12am UTC](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/dfinity-foundation-s-vote-on-governance-proposal-80970-spam-proposal-and-86639-temperature-check/16156/24 "2022-10-26T00:12:05Z")
> [@AndraGeorgescu](#): > > Did Dfinity consider the references as part of the proposal when assesing it? Was the information linked in the proposal considered in Dfinity’s decision-making process? Yes it was. Our intent is simple: we voted to keep the conversation going. The links were seen as examples of the conversation. We did NOT vote to approve a half-baked idea (which was not even in the proposal itself). No offense to the proposers, but idea is clearly still in progress. Is it fair to say “You guys misunderstood the intent of the proposal”? yes, @AndraGeorgescu I do think that would be reasonable. We voted how we interpreted it, which we explained. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.dfinity.org/t/dfinity-foundation-s-vote-on-governance-proposal-80970-spam-proposal-and-86639-temperature-check/16156)._