Interesting, the unofficial result without having non eligable voters removed would be:
53% Proposal 12: “Dev Fund Proposal: Dev Fund to ECC + Zfnd + Major Grants”
52% Proposal 13: “Keep It Simple, Zcashers (KISZ): 10% to ECC, 10% to Zfnd”
38% Proposal 3: “20% split between the ECC and the Foundation”
33% Proposal 10: “A Grand Compromise/Synthesis ZIP Proposal”
32% Proposal 8: “Kek’s proposal: fund ECC for 2 more years”
31% Proposal 11: “Decentralizing the Dev Fee”
30% Proposal 1: “Keep the block distribution as initaly defined. 90% to miners”
26% Proposal 6: “Blocktown Development Fund Proposal: 10% to a 2-of-3 multisig with community involved Third Entity”
24% Proposal 2: “A genuine opt-in protocol level, development donation option”
21% Proposal 5: “ZCFS (Zcash Community Funding System”)
20% Proposal 9: “Dev Fund Strategic Council Approach”
20% Proposal 4: “20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or ‘burn’”
15% Proposal 7: “Dev Fund Supplemental Proposal: enforce devfund commitments with legal charter”
I’am missing the ability to see who voted or are these going to be listed later with a list of non elegible voters. Or will it be kept in secret without any transparency?
Isn’t a vote supposed to be private? As far as I understand from my little experience voting in my country, they know I voted but not for whom… which is quite nice I believe…
Nobody is asking for posting who voted for what. But who was eligable and who not to vote, quiete different in my opinion.
Edit: Right now we do not know who was eligable, who will be removed from the count or anything. Asking just for something similar to the community advistory panel. We know who is there, who will vote but not what, that’s how it should be in my opinion.
Well I think we should let the voters choose whether they want to divulge their identities and I think the ZFND and ECC should reveal how they voted, if they voted.
I assumed they would be made public. So I voted abstain on all of them, only to realise what I did after I clicked the buttons and had to message shawn to let him know that my abstains would skew the vote slightly.
Would also be good to compare the total number of ‘yes’ votes and not just the percentages, since not all proposals have the same number of total votes. Some people abstained by voting ‘abstain’ and some abstained by just not voting for a particular proposal.
Only the final tally should be published, and exposure to the raw votes should be minimized and done under strict confidence.
The instructions for forum-based voting did not say anything about revealing information beyond total tally of eligible votes. Likewise, the forum poll was set up to publish only the final tally, so the system did not indicate that voter identities are public. This created expectations of confidentiality that should be not be changed retroactively.
It would not have been unreasonable to publish forum voter identities, had it been clearly said in advance. And I’d be in favor of that.
@acityinohio, evidently there was some confusion about this (see @mistfpga above too), and also I’m not sure how many people realized that the community advisory panel’s Helios voting system does publicly reveal when they have voted. This can be more clearly communicated next time. #DevFundRetrospective
Aye. And we indeed see that the total number of votes differs between proposals, so clearly some people “abstained” from specific proposals by just not voting on them. So I think the only meaningful numbers are yes-count and no-count, disregarding the abstains.
Another point to clarify next time. #DevFundRetrospective
So how do you tell the difference between apathy and abstention? there is no mechanism to spoil your ballot. so their has to be a 3rd option. otherwise you skew the results.
You look at the total number of yes/no vote for each proposal, compared to the total number of voters.
There’s no meaningful difference between voting “abstain” on a proposal vs. choosing not to vote on that proposal (but participating in others). Unless a meaning was defined in advance, which isn’t the case here.
Clarification: I’m not saying the abstain count should not be published. It’s clearly part of the final tally. It’s just useless under the circumstances. It would have been needed and meaningful, had only way to participate been to vote simultaneously on all proposals (as btw was the case in the Helios voting).
Thats why I asked for the option to be added to helios. - I think this might just be propagation of that. however I still think it has merit because people might think that they are forced to vote for or against something. so the abstains could be higher because of this.
I think it also means they don’t count as no votes. which is something different. I get where you are coming from but that would have also needed to be defined upfront with something like not voting counts as abstaining - forcing people to vote.
it is 6 of one half a dozen of the other. What will be interesting to see is the amount of abstains v no vote on a proposal. for example some proposals got less overall votes than others but still had an abstain option. Not sure how to interpret this. I guess we will have to wait for the final results to be collated.
oh and 100% on the retrospective, that will be really useful
A general note: that’s a dangerous attitude. If something is left to discretionary interpretation after the results are known, it will be very difficult to disentangle the interpretation from the interests of the interpreter. (“Of course you say now that abstain means foo, after you see that your favorite proposal got so many/few abstains!”). The honest and prudent thing to do is to pre-commit before the results are known.
Or better yet, of course, commit before the votes are cast, so that voters will know what their votes mean… But that’s a separate point.
Sure, I agree. I wasn’t saying that tho, I was just wondering how the number of people that abstained on a proposal compares to the number of people who voted on other proposals and didn’t on that one.
Its just the ratio and the metric that interests me so I can speculate as to why. My speculation is just personal curiosity nothing more.
Regarding the serious side of your comment, unfortunately that is what the whole process is. the “implementing the community’s will” when there is no defined community is the ultimate interpretational get out of jail free card.
I know this isn’t the intent of the statement but it could be used that way.
The forum instructions didn’t either mention that the accounts are hold in private. For example and to be honest, i was suprised it isn’t an open transparent poll from beginning.
I mean what’s the problem in announcing who voted without disclosing what they voted for?
We are not talking about highly sensitive information here but just who participated in the polling process.
On the other side, if such minimal information is not disclosed and the community can not see how participated, have they been eligible to vote than it would be all about full trust into the ZF, which in most proposals is set as a recepient of future funds and has an interest of the outcome.
The very least that should be done is to disclose the names of affilated with the ZF, ECC and/or Founders that voted on the forum poll.
I agree with this one. Even more interesting that i asked some weeks ago how the results are interpreted and even the different mechanisms counted versus each other, but unfortunatly i did not get any answer on this question.
And as nobody described exactly how the results are interpreted we are allready at a point where everybody can make more or less his own interpretations, which will get even worse when we add the advistory panel results with the verified forum results.
For the reasons Eran noted, ZF will be treating exactly who voted — and what they voted on — confidential. I set up the polls so the raw top-level results would be published automatically when the polls closed. You’ll be able to figure out what younger forum accounts voted by comparing the raw results (above) with the tallied results that filter them out.
- I think this might just be propagation of that. however I still think it has merit because people might think that they are forced to vote for or against something. so the abstains could be higher because of this.