@bjoernek to say this is very disappointing is an understatement.
This proposal literally came out of a discussion I had WITH YOU during the Governance Working Group DFINITY hosts, and with the governance group’s approval.
Where were these objections in the 2 months of leading up to the proposal when we did our due diligence? Why should anyone ever put this much work into a proposal again, just to have DFINITY unexpectantly shoot it down, only to give an explanation after the fact?
Frankly, I feel your explanation doesn’t include whatever DFINITY’s real reasons for rejecting this proposal are.
To not bring up these concerns for months, and to wait to explain them until only after placing a vote to reject, means you don’t want to have to argue the merit of your decision ahead of time. Why exactly is that?
Why your reasons for voting no make no sense
- The whole point of the proposals was to provide a framework for submitting proposals would “lead to code running on the IC”. Right now we have no common ground we can use to objectively argue to merit of different code changes, this is a first step.
- We were also going to make an NNS controlled canister to host the NNS Principles, which would be code running on the IC.
- We did define a specific an achievable process to implementation.
- DFINITY has voted to adopt other motion proposals in the past which specific were never intended to run code on the IC, such as the “Temperature Check” proposal. The purpose of that proposal was only to start a discussion, it specifically claimed no intent to change code. To approve a proposal like that, and reject this one is 100% hypocrisy.
- The NNS is designed to be a hybrid of both community and code. Therefore, defined parameters for the community aspect should be just as valid as defining parameters for the code aspect. Otherwise, I suggest DFINITY either remove the “motion” proposal type, abstain from voting on all motion proposals, or stop using the “this won’t lead to code” excuse whenever it’s convenient.
- If proposals for code changes are so important, then why hasn’t DFINITY implemented any of the community proposals arguing for code changes that have passed? For example, why are we still waiting on the implementation of the followee reset proposal?
Why DFINITY should have voted yes
In DFINITY’s own stated voting guidelines you list “About the IC and in the interest of the IC”.
This proposal was created to address serious concerns regarding the NNS, which were causing skilled building in the ecosystem to leave. Specifically, we design the “NNS Principles” proposal to ask neurons to tell the ecosystem that we can trust them not to abuse censorship or tokenomic powers. Neurons have no collective voice, and now you’ve removed even the chance for them to start forming one.
How is the NNS supposed to coordinate and accomplish anything meaningful or complex with absolutely no defined foundation, direction, or expectations?
What DFINITY should do next:
- Pick one:
A. Remove the “motion” proposal type entirely.
B. Abstain from voting on all motion proposals.
C. Stop using the “this won’t lead to code” excuse on motion proposals whenever it’s convenient and you don’t want to explain your actual motives. - Explain why you waited until AFTER voting to reject to bring up these objections, when you could have brought them up during the Governance Working Group meetings you hosted, where they were approved by the working group.
- Explain your plan for addressing the problem statement of this proposal, or your opposing research showing this problem doesn’t exist. You host the working group to do research to solve problems, so if you won’t accept those solutions it’s only fair that you produce your own plan to solve those problems.
- Since you think Known Neurons need to list their principles, and DFINITY and ICA are the largest Known Neurons, then please follow your own advice and list these principles. Namely, tell us where DFINITY will draw the line for censorship and tokenomic changes when voting on NNS proposals. I think everyone would really like to know!