This Binding Governance Proposal is to formally appoint Tobik to the DAO Committee, following Tobik’s selection amongst 5 candidates in a Pre-Proposal Poll, and confirmation in a Draft Proposal.
Abstract
This Binding Governance Proposal will lead to the formal appointment of Tobik to the DAO Committee by the DAO’s Security Advisory Board (SAB).
Motivation
This is the final stage in a three-part process to select a new DAO Committee Member. Since the resignation of Eric from the DAO Committee there have only been two members responsible for the DAO’s multi-sig. The purpose of this proposal is to uphold and bring to a close the process to select a new committee member, which was first set in motion in May 2022, with a proposal calling for Formalization of the process for adding and removing members.
Specification
Tobik will be appointed to the DAO Committee and added to the DAO’s multi-sig wallet.
Adding a third member to the DAO Committee will increase the security of our multi-sig wallet, and capacity of the DAO Committee to implement DAO decisions.
Implementation Pathways
If approved, a member of the Security Advisory Board (SAB) will create a transaction in Aragon to add Tobik’s wallet to the DAO Committee’s multi-sig. This transaction must be approved by 3 of 5 members of the SAB.
Conclusion
If approved, this will be the final stage in the current process to select a third DAO Committee Member. If rejected, the DAO must determine how best to proceed based on interpretation of the Formalization of the process for adding and removing DAO Committee member proposal. Consensus amongst Core Unit team members is that the process should resume only once a formal pathway exists within our governance dApp, to accommodate the procedures agreed upon in the formal process proposal.
I am voting yes for @Tobik and I hope he succeeds in his new role!! I did vote NO the first two votes strictly on what I thought was an immaturely level displayed in replies to questions around @RobL obviously illegitimate vote and also replies to/from @jar0d excessive questioning. When I actually dig down to this, I would like to know what his future co-workers think? Do you think you can help him mature into the role? Do you think he can be fair and unbiased when need be?
Since the pre-proposal was previously approved by the community, it indicates that @Tobik was already selected as the winner of the DAO Committee Elections through the voting process. Therefore, it would be reasonable to confirm Tobik as the winner of the elections.
This elections shows that community lacks voting power and all major decisions are done by a small group of whales. Its not bad and not good, this is reality.
DAO is evolving, I believe in Decentraland, please take more activity in working groups related to vp distribution and whale voting.
There is no reason for anyone to bother voting on this proposal. The bots and the Whales are on the same page.
At this point, Esteban just wants the process over, and he doesn’t believe there are merits to the arguments against the candidate who made it past the first round.
Clearly, the three rounds of voting were performative and otherwise pointless.
From an accountability standpoint, no one is following the correct policy. I will remain voting no because the policy for a “Ranked Vote” was not done. There is no reason to override this policy or create a new precedent. We had this procedure in place and no one is following it. Hence why we are having issues with this in the first place. Just re-do the vote as a “Ranked Voting” system and there wont be any questions.
@Matimio Can I ask you why you created a policy and now are trying to override it with this proposal? Your original policy passed. Why are we going against it?
Can you reframe your question please in a way that has less to do with me. I did not create a policy. I developed a proposal with numerous inputs. I am not trying to override it. I am continuing a process as an operator that has gone through multiple stages and twists and turns. This final proposal is a continuation of that process which has gone through multiple stages, and how and why we are at this stage now has been very well documented.
The default route is a vote by a ranked choice. The DAO never made a decision or had a vote NOT to “implement support for ranked choice voting.” What I am saying is an an operator of the DAO, isn’t it important to make sure we are following the rules? We never voted to do it this alternative way. We need a ranked vote before moving forward.
We have not followed the procedure. I am pushing for an annulment.
I like Tobik and if Tobik still has the support, he will win the right way following the correct procedure. I have nothing against him. I think this is a slippery slope if we don’t follow the procedures that the DAO enacted. That’s my concern.
This proposal was submitted by the DAO Facilitation Squad, as part of the ongoing process to select a new DAO Committee Member. Publishing of the proposal is neither an endorsement or indication of support for or opposition to the proposal by its author.
@Tobik has staying union status! He might not be qualified for the role, but he stayed active the longest when everyone else left. I guess the next question should we create an organized union in DCL? #InternationalBrotherhoodofDCL
qualify? all jokes aside, I personally appreciate your consistency being on this platform. As you know, we don’t need the same old same old, so I look forward to seeing a new voice of reason, not another ass-kisser…as you know, numbers don’t lie… people do… Happy disrupting @Tobik! #newperspective ?
He might not be qualified for the role, but he stayed active the longest when everyone else left. I guess the next question should we create an organized union in DCL? 
qualify? 
all jokes aside, I personally appreciate your consistency being on this platform. As you know, we don’t need the same old same old, so I look forward to seeing a new voice of reason, not another ass-kisser…as you know, numbers don’t lie… people do… Happy disrupting