Honestly I think comparing voting yes without verifying IC-OS releases to drinking and driving to be unjustifiable
Both are examples of ‘no harm no foul’ mentality, and an ‘appeal to consequences’ logical fallacy. If you agree that one action is wrong despite the absence of consequences in a specific scenario (e.g. drink driving) then it begs an explanation for why another ‘no harm no foul’ scenario (blindly voting ‘yes’ on a proposal that could bring down the IC, but didn’t) is justifiable on that basis.
I don’t think they should be held to public scrutiny and have to explain their vote
Named neurons have gone out of their way to advertise themselves as voters to be followed. I’m inviting Krzysztof to explain what happened here (I’m not assuming that there’s not a justification). I’m sure he’s perfectly capable of defending his position himself, or holding his hands up, and reassuring potential followers about how future proposals will be tackled.
you could start a thread and discuss that
If you think that would be useful, I may take a look at doing so at some point.
correct me if i’m wrong but you are apart of the CodeGov team? So you get paid to verify these?
Yes.
I think it’s important to remember most named neurons are not paid to verify these and are just doing the best they can and receive the normal staking rewards for doing so.
This is unlikely to be the case moving forward.
In any case, I don’t see your point. If you’re not going to verify a proposal before voting ‘yes’, you’re acting irresponsibly. This is the use case that liquid democracy accommodates - so why not use it properly (follow those who put the work in and verify proposals, and even review the code - Krzysztof could simply follow a neuron that claims to do / evidences this)?