We will be selecting a new roster of nine GMC members. We’re still waiting on the ‘Determine Voting Criteria’ regarding RPIP-4 to wrap up before we can start the voting process for new members. Once that is live I will update this thread with the link.
The list of nominees is:
waqwaqattack, epineph, rplmaxi.eth, Dondochaka, Destroyaaa, ken, jcrtp, rocknet, drdoofus, FeelingoodFeelingrt (KentPhilly), lookingforowls
In order to help inform your choices, please refer to:
You may also ask questions of nominees - I suggest doing that in this thread so others can benefit from the discussion
Per RPIP-10:
Voters MAY split their vote however they wish. If the voter has no specific split they wish to follow, it is RECOMMENDED that they evenly split their weight among their top N candidates, where N is the desired number of of members on the committee.
For full voting process, see the “Management Committee Selection” section of RPIP-10.
Woo! This is the first time I’ll be voting with delegated power, and therefor the first time I get to post an explanation of my vote.
GMC elections are pretty tough, due to the large number of slots and larger number of qualified candidates.
Methodology
I’m going to rank each candidate with arbitrary points and vote for each one a number of times equal to their ranking, normalizing to 0 for my lowest score. My criteria are technical ability (based on knowledge of the candidate and their statement - worth 2 points), involvement in the community (1 point), and relative activity level (as the GMC has lately had trouble getting a quorum of signatures due to some members being offline), and an additional point for anything I think is valuable that isn’t captured by those criteria.
To the candidates: please don’t take these personally. I love everyone who is nominated equally, excepting Dr Doofus (I will leave which direction he is excepted in as an exercise to the reader).
Scoring
waqwaqattack
3 - Full points for involvement and activity levels. Additional point for going above and beyond to serve the community.
Great energy, which is worth 0 points, but after reading his statement, I am amped up.
epineph
3 - Mirroring waq, epineph has been very active and is often online. Technical prowess unknown (self-described as very little programming knowledge, hobbyist node operator).
Excellent at challenging assumptions, which I’m treating as compensating for a deduction in availability (finger-in-the-wind, epineph is often online, but a bit more sparse).
rplmaxi.eth
3 - Far from a stranger, a point each for community involvement and online presence, plus a point for experience in the marketing sector (categorizing this under technical ability), which is a valuable asset to the GMC.
Dondochaka
2 - Both points are for technical ability. Their alignment statement professes a time crunch, which is understandable, but at this stage I prefer candidates who will be able to participate very actively, especially when it comes to reviewing proposals. I hope Dondo will not be discouraged if not elected and will run again when his schedule is more permissive.
Destroyaaa
3 - A software engineer garnering 2 points. Additional point for being active and committing ‘a few hours a week’ to the position.
Ken
3 - Modestly technical when it comes to software, but very good with models and numbers, I’ll give ken one point for technical ability and one for community involvement. Third point is a bit je ne sais quoi, a bit because of his status in the broad ecosystem as a recognizable evangelist for decentralization and rocket pool.
jcrtp
5 - Full marks on technical, plus a point each for engagement and expertise. I worry a little bit about Joe’s availability, because frankly, he’s a busy bee, but I will accept that this is his decision to make. Additional point for writing so many bounties, which are, on the whole, an excellent use of the GMC’s budget.
rocknet
4 - Full marks for technical ability, a point for how long he’s been a participating member of the protocol, a point for his availability. Fourth point is because I’ve seen his organizational leadership when it came to holesky genesis.
Dr Doofus
3 - Full marks for technical ability, a point for deep involvement in the community, a point for a demonstrated history of being an excellent and energetic voice in governance.
Minus one point at his request? He said I shouldn’t vote for him.
FeelingoodFeelingrt (KentPhilly)
1 - Technical ability unclear, relatively low engagement on discord with only 151 messages sent. More involved on the forums. Availability unclear. One point for their track record of creating marketing/education materials to help stakers.
lookingforowls
Sigh. 4 - two points for the technical ability I know the man possesses but is relatively reticent about. A point for community involvement. And a final point for being a natural skeptic- a self professed foil to dr doofus.
Y’all don’t make this easy. I’m sure, for the first time in many votes, that the outcome of this one is largely irrelevant to the success of the protocol. Thank you to everyone who stepped up for consideration.
Honestly, the field is a little small for me to fine-toothed comb this, but I’ll do a quick version of what patches did. By proven reliable I mean I have personally seen them be reliable - eg, I won’t count rocknet’s organizational leadership in holesky cuz I have no clue what that entails or how it went. By special skills I mean “specifically useful to determine what bounties/grants are worthy and how much they should pay out” - this is predominantly technical, but wanted something more flexible. “Highly active” encompasses discord participation, forum participation, and expected future participation. I’ll be grading 0 to 1 on everything except where I cheat. As with patches, I encourage folks not to take this personally, except for doctor doofus who should feel like the 3 numbers below fully encompass everything I feel about them.
Nominee
Proven reliable
Highly active
Special skills
waq
1
1.5
0
epi
1
.5
.5
rplmaxi
1
.5
.5
dondo
1
-1
.5
destroyaaa
0
.5
1
ken
1
.5
.5
jcrtp
1
1
1.5
rocknet
0
.5
1
dr doofus
.5
-.5
.5
kentphilly
1*
.5
0.5
LFO
.5
1
.5
*kentphilly was the fourth person that offered to take over the RP defi document for me. They were the only one to deliver for more than a few weeks. They also made big improvements, got a website, blah, blah. I feel extremely confident about them being active and reliable participants, which is a huge deal to me.
Update 11-04:
Removed vote power from current leading 3 (3.5 joe, 2.5 waq, 2 ken) - they don’t need me
Removed vote power from (0.5) drdoofus since I don’t trust that people read doofus’ preference to not be selected
I split the vote power from the bullets above between two picks I personally thought were being significantly undervalued (vs my understanding):
KentPhilly doesn’t have a lot of name recognition; I described my biggest interaction with them above
Epineph has moderate name recognition, but they’re kinda quiet on the whole vs their actual contribution. They post on the forum, and reply in spoiler tags instead of having lots of comments.
