I was unable to confirm this because there are currently no “active” votes to view on Snapshot or on the website.
However, your screen shot above, which prompted me to mention last night that I would take a look at the website today, shows abstain votes during an “active” voting session.
As @br00no said, they probably forgot to update the website when they made the same update to Snapshot. This is a big discussion about this very same abstain issue in this topic which I posted earlier.
Hey @Lost.Admin, can you chime in on this please. ty.
Indeed.
When I used the word “arbitrary” to describe the action as was taken, my post got flagged - and hidden, until I changed it to remove that word. Apparently it wasn’t an arbitrary decision by the foundation, but rather a consensus within the foundation as depicted here in Amplify’s post. The point of the use of the word “arbitrary” was to say that the action taken was, as you stated, “without formal community input or a vote” from what was depicted in AIP-200.
Amplify confirmed this here:
Basically, it appears that the foundation - at its discretion - can make changes to an AIP that has already passed by voting. This presents a concern because if this AIP idea goes to vote as-is, and it passes, what’s to prevent the foundation from once again changing it from what was intended in the voting? Hopefully @amplify.Admin can chime in here and provide some clarity and transparency.