[DAO:a3ffc08] Should these selected community members be confirmed as part of the Revocations Committee?

by 0x858343382132b9ab46c857a7d52fdbafc039f784 (Zino)

After a 3 stage governance process to create a Revocations Committee to decide when to revoke grants, we started to follow the procedure defined in the art. 3 of the Revocations Committee Framework (previously named Accountability Committee)

Article 3 stated that:

Procedure how to create, add/remove an Accountability Committee Member To create the initial Committee-
The process for creating this committee of 5 members includes three stages:

I) The open application period in the forum, which took place here

II) The Grant Support Squad interviews the candidates and makes a final selection of 5 members and 2 substitutes, which the Grant Support Squad has worked on in the past 3 weeks. We have interviewed 14 candidates. Based on the criteria, we have come up with this selection to be the most diverse in terms of background, Decentraland expertise, gender, professional experience, and openness to work with others collaboratively and multidisciplinary within the members who applied.

III) final poll for the community to accept or decline this selection.

Following this procedure, and at the third stage of article three of this proposed framework selected by the community, here are our candidates. Now it is up to the community to confirm this selection is a good fit.

Here are some relevant about why each of the members was selected:


Dax: Experience in Decentraland as a land owner since the genesis auction in 2017, an active and trusted member of the community, technical expertise, experience being a grantee leading DCL Metrics. Check out the application here.

Metadoge: Experience in project management, trusted and active member for chinese speaking community in Decentraland, experience being a grantee leading MetaGamiMall. Check out the application here

Bay: Experience as a creative technologist, experience being a grantee leading Vueltta and public speaker providing exposure and enhancing Decentralands brand perception to new audiences. Check out the application here

DeadHeadJ: Experience as a Human Resources manager for more than a decade who brings effective communication expertise and is a Decentraland contributor in the WhalesVote working group. Check out the application here

Maryana: 5 years of external audit/internal audit experience, and now oversee $1B in Revenue data at a Hospital, contributes for Decentraland in the DAO Committee working group, and in the following grants: DCL Virtual Library and IN WORLD Marketplace . Check out the application here


Serena Elis: is an active community member, beneficiary of the Grant called Entertainment and Women Empowerment through Music with Education and Resources, content creator and promoter of Decentraland.
Check out the application here

Maserphaz: Joined Decentraland in November 2021, is part of the team behind the Grant called “Development of Exodus: Goodbye World”, and an active voter. Check out the application here

  • YES
  • NO
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

Hi @Zino, can you tell me please why there is no Tudamoon in this list ?

1 Like

The same methodology we voted for Tobik (DAO Committee) , should be the same voting process for revocations committee. If these people were selected by a bias person in the GSS squad, we are still back in the same situation we started in. GSS said the purpose of the revocations committee is to avoid conflict of interest. However, here you go electing who the " GSS See Fits in the Committee". We need to keep this decentralized in order to be fair. This is “DCL” A Decentralized platform and we need keep it that way. We need to preserve DCL Organizational Culture.

I didn’t know you came around anymore. Welcome back!

1 Like

The creation of this committee is a long process, whose ultimate goal is the decentralization of decisions.

Until today, the path was this:

  • Poll to see how grants should be revoked (Approved)
  • Draft to create a new revocations committee that included the proposal of members (rejected, the community requested that should be 2 different processes).
  • Draft + Governance validating the creation of the new committee and the process of choosing its members that we are following here (approved)
  • Members Open Call
  • Poll to define the name of the committee
  • Poll to define the members (this is the one that is being voted here).

We are following the procedure that the community approved. Remember that this election of members is to give the formal start to the committee, and that it lasts for 1 year so the members of the committee can be modified later.

If the community thinks it should be different, we can ask the Facilitation Squad to set up a process similar to the one for the election of the new member of the DAO Committee.

However, our point of view is that the faster the committee is active, the closer we will be to decentralization. Considering that the people voted in here will have responsibility for only 12 months, and considering that the grant program is about to restart, I would not hesitate to take the step to make the first committee effective.

Thanks for your inputs


Grant Support Squad had two months to complete this task. Grants were on pause for two months. Now you are saying because grants is going to resume in 3 days and Grant Support Squad didn’t do this for the pass two months, Grant Support Squad now wants to put their own people in position of power without the community input??? Grant Support Squad wants to rush to put their own people in place and leave out Decentralization and Democracy? This is going too far with the Grant Support Squad! I also will be submitting a proposal on behalf of Grant Support Squad today for changes. Yes, the DCL revocation process needs improvements, but not just in a haste. This has to be a DCL DAO community led initiative on behalf of GSS, just like what we did for the DAO Committee.

In this proposal below, you all tried the same thing and the community voted it down. Click the link below.

The community has already stated several times, they would like to be involved in the selection process.

The Facilitation Squad did an amazing job when the elections were organized by them on behalf of the DAO Committee.

Just because the grants is going to reopen in 3 days, doesn’t mean speed is the answer. You guys had two months to complete this task.

We need to move correctly, not just fast. This decision represents the whole DCL We need Decentralization and Democracy.

1 Like

Have you been involved the last 2 months? I didn’t know you were still active.

They are being voted into, you are free to vote no.

I think adding these members to start is okay, there was an open call period for anyone to apply and someone needs to do the job of prescreening the candidates for presenting to the community in a vote like we are doing here. I do not however like how were are being forced to choose all or nothing. While I am supportive of most of the candidates suggested there is one I have concerns about their credibility based on prior projects and do not feel comfortable voting yes while this person is in the line up. It would be nice to split this up into 5 separate proposals for each candidate and then proceed to the substitutes if any are voted down.


Hello everyone, as part of the GSS team, I want to tell you that we are doing our best to get this committee up and running. If the process is getting long it’s because of the back and forth that I mentioned before.

I agree about what it’s being said about decentralization and democracy (that’s why the selection is based on the process the community voted on), and we have to be aware that the DAO is creating its processes, many things are new, and it’s clear that we are human and can be wrong. This is precisely why the creation of this committee is very important.

In relation to the pre-elected members, I want to clarify, again, that the selection was based on the process the community voted on and that, among the people nominated, we put those names who we thought would be a better fit (in fact, you can see the first draft proposal in which we called the first members to constitute the committee and you can see that the proposed members are others).

Of course we are open to modify what is necessary based on what the community requires.

Thanks for the comments,


Hi Palewin of Grant Support Squad, Are you saying we can only agree to accept the people you proposed here in this voting proposal? Or we will be able to vote decentralized/individually/ per person just as the facilitation squad did with the execution of their proposal? The community agreed on a Decentralized voting process and worked so hard for it. Why does the GSS want to undo what we all agreed on?

For example: Later if someones grant gets revocated, they will say the Grant Support Squad put their own people inside to execute their own agenda. I honestly feel it’s best to let the community vote and take on that responsibility and we need more room for transparency. There was nothing voted on with these individuals and each person and situation is case by case.

Can you please link the proposal where this was approved?

Here is the Governance proposal:

Could you do an open call inviting all the proposed committee members? I believe it would be beneficial for the community to have the chance to get to know the members before the DRAFT proposal is voted.


Thank you @yemel for trying to correct this for the community and for trying to provide transparency.

Hi @yemel

Yes! It could be a good idea to organize an event on Discord where we can introduce the potential candidates. We could also utilize Slido to allow the entire community to ask questions about their profiles.
Let´s do it :raised_hands:


hey zino. Are these candidates finalized?

I like the idea of learning more about these community members before proceeding further. I know most of them through parties and hanging out, but that’s not the same thing as knowing them on a professional level.

In the real world you have to get interviewed for a job before you get the job, so why would it be any different here? I think setting a baseline standard that we interview every candidates for every position no matter how big or small will protect us in the long run.


Thank you @Canessa for speaking out as well!