AIP-467: Proposal To Revise Special Council & WG Stewards Term Limits

Withdrawn AIPs
16

In the interest of transparency (as per our guiding principles) here is where we are with this. Perhaps some of you can chime in here and let me know what - if anything - I am missing here.

From Special Council

Your AIP Idea was tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” and sent to the Special Council. Upon careful review, your topic has been deemed “Return for Clarification”.

In doing so the Special Council cited the following reasons:

Some aspects of this AIP are at odds with the mission, values, or overall well-being of the Foundation or DAO. Could you please revise your proposal by removing the introduction of a two-year term limit for the Special Council and Working Group Stewards?

We look forward to hearing from you for clarification regarding the above questions.

My Response:

Thanks. Please pass this along for me as written:

I personally fail to see how such a term increase - which is in the interest of continuity - is against the mission, values or overall well-being of the Foundation or DAO.

And so, I would very much like some clarity as to why a proposal can’t be written to increase or shorten term limits. What is the exact problem that such a term increase would cause? To wit:

  1. Mission: How does increasing term limits go against this mission?
  2. Values: How does increasing term limits go against the values?
  3. Well-Being: How does increasing term limits go against the well-being?

Without clarity, the above are relegated to mere weasel words that lack context, candor and transparency in their application here.

Also, the proposal has three core tenets:

  1. In the next (2025) Special Council elections, increase the term from 1 (one) to 2 (two) years
  2. In the next (2025) GwG elections, increase the term from 1 (one) to 2 (two) years
  3. Remove the restriction that prevents a Special Council member or GwG steward from running for office for more than 2 (two) terms. If an individual is dedicated enough to the DAO and thus wants to run for 10 years straight - and the DAO voters allow it, why not let them?

If I were to remove the term increase, as in item 1-2, that would leave item 3. And then that begs the question: If a proposal can’t increase (let alone reduce) a term, how then can it, as in the case of 3, allow people to serve for more than 2 terms? I ask this because obviously item 3 remains unchallenged.

Better yet, we’ve had AIPs which altered the pay schedules + budgets of the aforementioned parties; but somehow they were OK.

The Special Council serves at the behest of the DAO, and so, decisions like this are up to the DAO community to propose and vote on. Thus far, I have failed to find anything that leads me to believe that increasing term limits is outside the realms of community control.

Similarly, I would like to point out that AIP-1 has a clear definition of “Return for Reconstruction” where the reason for this AIP guidance stems from. And to that end, by my calculations (which I am happy to share), a good 45% of everything in AIP-1 has since been revised, augmented or removed. e.g. we changed Cartan, we revised the salaries, we created other community services besides Discourse etc. etc. And so, I am having difficulty understanding why term limits can’t be revised by the community via vote.

I just need some clarity so that I can better understand the logic here.

1 Like