I just wanted to add context to my assertions that the SC failure to bring this AIP up for vote, by keeping it in indefinite admin revieww, is a clear violation of the DAO mandates, as well as a violation on a DAO member’s rights.
Exhibit 1:
AIP-1 : Proposing The DAO - Process
GUIDELINES
- Every year, there is a DAO-wide vote to determine which DAO members will serve on a special council on the APE Foundation (the DAO’s “Board”). The purpose of the Board is to administer DAO proposals and serve the vision of the community.
- A Board member may be removed and replaced prior to the term pursuant to a majority vote of token holders.
- The total cost of implementation must be clear in order for a proposal to go to vote.
- DAO members must search past proposals to ensure any idea they intend to write a proposal for has not already been submitted.
- If a suggested proposal directly conflicts with a proposal that is currently up for vote, the second proposal should not go for a vote until a decision is made on the first proposal to avoid approval of opposing requirements.
- A suggested proposal that directly conflicts with another approved proposal cannot go to vote for three months after the original proposal has been implemented to avoid wasting community assets.
- Proposals will not be considered/put up for a vote if they involve illegal activity, hate speech, pornographic material, or are at odds with the mission or values of the APE Foundation.
Exhibit 2:
AIP-137 : The Special Council Nomination Process
Exhibit 3:
AIP-138 : The Special Council Election Process
Exhibit 4:
AIP-173 : Add new Discourse category for Administrative Review
And for reference purposes: