Hi folks, per RPIP-10, “There SHOULD be a pDAO review of MC membership within 6 months of the MC’s creation.” It’s not well defined what that is.
The IMC was also created before the full voting process with nominations etc was fleshed out - a list was put together based on discord chat and the whole slate was voted on.
So with that in mind…
- I’m happy enough, and would like the current IMC to continue
- I think it’d be good to vote out specific members, see my feedback below
- I think we should vote for the membership from scratch
And here’s some context to help guide your thoughts:
Feel free to peruse the
#rETH Liquidity Incentives and
#IMC execute threads in the governance section of the discord if you’d like to see the IMC in action as well
While concerns about voter fatigue are valid, since the IMC predates the full selection process I do think there should be a vote on the full membership in a similar manner to the GMC.
More generally, terms are important to keep membership from becoming stagnant and allow opportunity for new voices. Voting out members is only really viable in extreme scenarios as most people do not wish to be antagonistic towards individuals.
I would also prefer for elections to be the default. I expect a high re-election rate as long as people are generally happy. But elections gives members an easy out: just don’t run again. And it gives voters an opportunity to make some changes, without needing to call out specific members.
Voter fatigue will be less of an issue if we are doing a GMC election for the two potential new spots at the same time. Not sure that’s where that is heading but it’s a possibility.