Regarding proposals that have been Returned for Reconstruction, the Foundation would like to clarify for the community that these “Returns” may also be revoked upon further review. This would have the effect of reverting a proposal tagged “Return for Reconstruction” back to its previous “AIP Draft” status, eliminating the need for those authors to completely re-submit proposals as an AIP Idea for a second time.
We believe this clarification will help the community to better understand certain mechanics of the existing AIP process, and would enable some authors to have their proposals put up for vote in a more timely, expeditious fashion.
Clarifying further, authors also retain the right to resubmit a proposal that has been Returned for Reconstruction, and may opt to forego the seven-day community feedback period if they so choose.
Return for Reconstruction - a type of administrative classification that requires the proposer to restart the proposal submission process because the Pending AIP violates DAO-approved requirements, or in cases of violation of the law, reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information, or the pending AIP being at odds with the mission, values, or well-being of the Foundation or DAO.
Once a Return for Reconstruction has been assigned then an AIP has to restart the submission process. This is according to the rules on the official apecoin.com website.
Can the Foundation revoke a Return for Reconstruction? I see a new process suggestion here posted by the admin account and not the GWG.
AIP-239 states the GWG has this remit :
Creating and maintaining policies and procedures as they relate to governance.
However, we have not created this new procedure listed above.
Revoking AIP status has happened numerous times before and the AIP has been sent back to admin review. We’ve approved numerous proposals to go to vote and pulled them/revoked status and go back to admin review. Revoking return for reconstruction status is the same. Tbh this forum post wasn’t necessary by the admin team and adds to the confusion. This is a non issue.
Dear @BoredApeG I have copied the text from the official website below:
Return for Reconstruction - a type of administrative classification that requires the proposer to restart the proposal submission process because the Pending AIP violates DAO-approved requirements, or in cases of violation of the law, reasonable suspicion of fraud or other misleading information, or the pending AIP being at odds with the mission, values, or well-being of the Foundation or DAO.
I have to respectfully disagree with you and follow the definition as published on the ApeCoin official website.
There’s nothing to disagree here, it’s not the same thing. If that were still the return for reconstruction status, but not if it’s revoked then it’s still in admin review. SC and Foundaiton can change their mind/votes. Same as when an AIP has move to ready for vote status and is revoked (which again has happened numerous times).
Therefore, it has already reach Final AIP status. As it had not been accepted, the only other option is Not Accepted.
Please show the community the published process to revoke a return for reconstruction status, which has reached the Final AIP Status and was NOT accepted.
We can disagree in thinking it’s the not the same, but it doesn’t change the fact the return status was revoked. Show me where it says it can’t be applied this way either?In any case, of course the Foundation can always apply discretion because it’s impossible to cover every single edge case scenario. I trust you compared to most members in the community would understand this when you’re experienced on other boards and/or non-profits.
FYI, The onus to prove this is on the Special Council, not the person showing an alternative published process.
As the Special Council has transitioned to an “Advisory Board” following AIP-426, it now serves solely in an advisory capacity and lacks any corporate decision-making authority. Consequently, the Special Council should not be compared to the board of a Foundation.
This raises the question of whether the Foundation Directors—whose identities have not been disclosed—have bypassed the established DAO process. This action may have been taken at their discretion or potentially with guidance from the Advisory Board.
I recognize the need to enhance our ApeCoin DAO structures and processes, as there are several aspects that are outdated or require improvement. While I cannot speak on behalf of all GWG Stewards in my personal capacity, I believe it is essential to seek a win-win solution. Implementing such a significant governance decision in this manner may undermine the credibility of the ApeCoin DAO.
FYI.
I have no visibility on the corporate documents of the ApeCoin Foundation. Also, if I did I would be under NDA not to share unless they were public documents. Regarding the discretion I don’t know if this is made by Webslinger or Directors of the Foundation.
Every Foundation must have one or more Director as a rule. Unless they are setup in a jurisdiction which has specific rules for DAOs, such as the Marshall Islands, then they have Managing Members.
Cayman Foundations would have such roles: Founders, Directors, Secretary and Supervisor. They may have Members and Beneficiaries.
This is NOT for the ApeCoin Foundation. However, a useful reference.
Wait! So, are you suggesting that the Ape Foundation isn’t just WebSlingers + Special Council and that there was in fact a cabal (lol) behind-the-scenes? I would like clarity on this point please. You can’t throw stuff like this out there without raising a few eyebrows - mine included.
