If the next GMC vote is coming up this might be a better solution. Just wait for the new nominations for the next period with the assumption that Invis doesn’t have the votes to win a second term.
The expected outcome isn’t assured like a direct vote for removal but could be an acceptable middle ground.
I think it’s the truth. We’re talking about the same person that burned 1ETH to challenge the etherscan oDAO membership, just because they could. I think reading anything more into it, especially malice, is unfounded.
Resignation and running again would’ve been possible if this thread was created earlier, but it has been created after the nomination period had closed. So I don’t think it’s right to ask him to resign now, unless we allow him to immediately run again. I agree this would be the best for the community and him at this point, but it’s currently not on the table.
Clearly poor judgment with harm directed against someone in the community. This is by someone who themselves is judging others’ work for the allocation of community funds. Having a member of a governing body for a fledgling governance treat the protocol as a bit of a toy is disheartening to say the least. If a promising new community member did what was done I would hazard we would not tolerate such action. If anything our volunteer Management Committee (MC) members should hold themselves to a higher standard. As surely the community sees them as the highest standard.
That said, this isn’t a company. Invis is part of this community commons. The remorse and regret is genuine. The apology letter is thoughtful and well said. Invis can be of benefit to the protocol and, in my view, importantly the community can be of benefit to Invis.
The fundamental issues are ill defined expectations and lack of a toolset of our protocol governance to deal with such poor behavior.
The fact is the team is the one that had the defined rule to set expectations (be awesome to one another), is the one that passed judgment (was not awesome), and is the one that decided on the violation and is enforcing it (discord ban). Our governance doesn’t have a good solution. Having the primary option for the pDAO being an entire community vote to pass judgment and remove a MC member is not ideal. It is costly in efforts, will lead to more contention and drama with mob rule, and sets a poor precedent for the future. I applaud Slugrug for standing up and starting the conversation while trying to make use of the tools we have. But this shouldn’t have to be the tool we use. Let’s build these tools instead.
This is a great opportunity to strengthen governance. It would be great to hear from Invis what he believes should be done if his actions were done by another person. Weeks of community service triaging support? Providing grunt work for community poaps? doing service helping the greater staking community? Removal from a MC? Other options for other skillsets? All of the above? I favor service to the greater staking community, but I don’t know. I believe Invis’ unique position of carelessly caring can be of use in defining MC member expectations and graduated sanctions to strengthen our governance and mitigate the harm done.
A commons doesn’t run on good will, but on accountability. Let’s not brush this aside but instead treat it as an opportunity to grow. I am not neutral. I vote no to all the options on the sentiment poll.
That’s fair. I wasn’t trying to diminish the work the GMC does for very little in return. I respect and I’m grateful for the time and effort you and the others on the committee do. My point is there should be consequences for bad behavior. There are others that can fill Invis’ role.
“Cemeteries are full of men who thought they were irreplaceable.” - Winston Churchill
I am strongly in favor of keeping Invis. But if the decision is for this to go to a vote then I would be in favor of giving Invis the option to resign and we make an exception to allow him to run in the current election. I think that option would satisfy the majority and prevent another potentially contentious vote.
At over 40% remove, this would absolutely move forward. We need to see if it changes a lot, ofc, but that’s where we sit. I’d be comfortable making an exception to include invis on a current vote as you suggest - seems to be very minor bend of the proper flow.
Invis’ actions were petty, malicious, and thoughtless. They were bullying, even if Invis thought he was punching up the financial hierarchy. These actions are not the public face we want to project from Rocket Pool governance. They risked both real harm to individuals as well as a permanent fissure in the RP community.
However, the targeted griefing has thus far resulted in no actual harm to Marceau, just potential harm which has now passed (since we are all griefed). The widespread griefing cannot be blamed on Invis any more than any of us who amplified the message by talking about it and increasing the number of eyes on the bug. And Invis has shown some degree of contrition; he will be watched closely for any future missteps.
I honestly think a snapshot vote to determine the fate of one individual on one committee for an unrelated and relatively minor offense would be bad for the protocol, so I vote to keep invis. Since the removal of Invis would leave a minority of committee members from the original election and we will already be running a new snapshot for GMC vacancies, I think the less confrontational and more efficient poll would be:
That being said, my earnest hope is that regardless of the outcome, Invis learns from this. If he remains on the committee or returns to discord it is not because he’s a crack programmer or a funny shitposter, it’s because human beings have an amazing capacity for forgiveness and a heartfelt belief in the basic goodness of others. So tone down the cynicism bit.
I am open to this as well. Does anyone have opinions on timelines here? I was planning on leaving this thread open for a couple of days before moving forward with which ever direction we decide. Has anyone spoken to Invis directly?
I hereby resign from the GMC, as suggested in this thread. The required transaction to remove myself from the GMC multsig has been created by me and I will cease involement with the internal GMC communication channels following this message. The removal of my address also includes a reduction of the required confirmations to conform to the rules mentioned RPIP-10.
I agree with the arguments mentioned in favour of my resignation. Taking this to a snapshot vote feels a bit too far for my liking - I should be able to act on my own before requiring outside enforcement. I hope that I may be able to rejoin the GMC in the future through the normal onboarding process, as I did enjoy my time as a GMC member.
I hereby also remove myself from possible consideration for the 2023-02 Nomination Pool as I would like some more time between my resignation and (possible) rejoinment.
Thank you for taking this decision off of the pDAO’s and GMC’s hands. I think it reflects well on you.
Thank you for your time on the GMC and for this.