Actually so far 62 people voted and 57 did not so far.
I agree with @dontbeevil that participating is important and everybody eligable should vote for what he thinks is best for Zcash’s future.
FWIW, speaking not for ECC but for myself and as a ZIP Editor, my position is that I will completely ignore the results of the coin-weighted poll regardless of what those results are, and that is what I am advocating that others, including ECC and ZF, do. (If coin holders want to express their opinions, they are able to do so via other channels, including on this thread. See also my comment on Staked Poll on Zcash Dev Fund Debate - #196 by daira .)
This has been fixed (coincidentally yesterday). Please let me know if you see any further accessibility problems with that site.
@acityinohio 1/3 of members didn’t vote yet, can you send a follow up email asking them if they can vote (if you’ve not already sent an email). Hope the 1/3 is happy and healthy to vote.
Thanks @dontbeevil @boxalex; FWIW I sent a reminder (only to those who haven’t voted yet) late on Friday EST, but I will send another today. So far we are at 74/119 eligible voters which isn’t a terrible turnout, but I’d certainly prefer more votes cast.
Good point; we included that question as a sanity check to make sure the Foundation’s minimal changes to ZIP 1012 still had support. But if the community doesn’t support it as a basis then I think it calls into question those changes — and we’d have to solicit more feedback from authors and the community, as the Foundation wrote in mid-December:
If the proposal is not approved: the Foundation will solicit feedback from ZIP authors and the community to refine the proposal further, and then go through this final vote process again.
Quick update: extended the voting period by 12 hours until Jan 28th 12:00 ET (17:00 UTC) to give a few stragglers a brief grace period to submit their ballots. So far 86 have voted, hoping to get a few more in before the poll is over.
Results here: Polling Community Sentiment on ZIP 1014
The Foundation board will be meeting tomorrow afternoon to discuss and release an official statement.
Edit: Just to offer more of an explanation regarding the deadline extension; there were a few stragglers that had email issues (the Helios system apparently was not sending their login credentials for whatever reason). We wanted to give them the opportunity to vote despite the technical issues. No one can see the intermediate results on Helios, so no one knew how this would affect the outcome. The total poll from last night to noon today increased by 2 votes; from 86 to 88.
Not surprising the results for the community advisory panel are basically identical, well I guess they’re a little different but we didn’t really talk about it much
Is this a cryptographic guarantee, or simply a result of the interface not offering such functionality? I admit that I know very little about Helios.
[Just going to preface this by saying that I am by no means a Helios expert either] I think for a reallllly dedicated adversary (e.g. if they had somehow backdoored https://heliosvoting.org/) they would be able to see the intermediate tally by decrypting the ballot with the server’s key before we had initiated the tally on the helios interface, but AFAIK there is a cryptographic guarantee there that the votes remain secret until the tally is computed. Note that this means we are effectively trusting heliosvote (as they were the trustee with the secret key necessary for the final tally computation) which isn’t ideal, but others have trusted the system before with important elections. And it’s only trusting heliosvote to keep the results and individual ballot selections secret, I don’t believe they can change the tally in anyway.
But again I’m not an expert and would welcome other more informed perspectives on this. I am pretty confident that nothing nefarious could have happened, but I appreciate the concern, particularly after the sudden extension — which was a judgement call on my part to allow voters who had technical issues an opportunity to vote.
Interesting results.
1.) With 77 votes for and only 11 against ZIP 1014 got approved as it seems.
2.) This one surpised me a bit, i would have bet the ECC gets 50%. As the 35% option gots most votes with 41 and 12 are fine with either option i think this option does not need another voting with a combined result of 41 + 12 = 53% and the 2nd result far behind with 20 + 12 = 32. That’s really a surprise in my opinion.
3.) Wow, identical result with 34 to 34. I guess there is no way other than another polling for this result and question.
4.) As awaited, vast majority voted for “no funding cap”.
5.) As the majority voted for “no funding cap” i guess this quesiton lost it’s importance all over. In case this question has still a role for maybe theoretical possible such cases i suggest to add another option IF there is another voting/polling with this quesiton: Even split btw. Major Grants and Foundation.
I don’t think we need another poll based on the results. If majority don’t care about new committee, Zcash Foundation should be good enough to disperse funds.
Its kinda funny how its split between a foundation that doesn’t want that responsibility and a committee that doesn’t exist.
Plenty of time to sort that out, looks like the only loose end.
Hi everybody.
Our response to the polling has been posted: Dev Fund poll shows consensus - Electric Coin Company
Thank you for all the engagement and support! There are still steps ahead but we’re happy with the outcome and look forward to our shared future work together.
Its actually funnier than that. The foundation was going to set up a binding committee. If I’m remembering correctly, people on the forum objected. So we added the question to see if the committee would be approved.
…and its for control over the largest slice!!
Random thought, maybe if nobody wants that responsibility it should be shared - perhaps a Helios vote every so often to approve/review MG recipients.
Keep in mind a third party MG committee would be required to do a lot of work to evaluate/debate and allocate funds to applicants. As far as I can tell this isn’t something that they will receive compensation for and it would need to be volunteers independent of ECC of ZFND.
Introduction of such a committee presents a set of unique challenges unto itself.
Hello friends,
We want to thank the Zcash community for making its voice heard and the Zcash Foundation for stewarding the process. It’s been arduous, to say the least, but good governance is hard and we believe that the Zcash community is exhibiting a level of leadership not seen anywhere else.
We posted our intent to accept the result of the foundation’s polling here: Dev Fund poll shows consensus
We’re excited and honored by the community’s engagement and support.
(Percentages are percentage of eligible voters — 88 voters total.)
Although the petitioning that some coin holders did on the Zcash blockchain was highly contentious, we are glad to see that their calls were largely consistent with the sentiment gathered by the foundation. We maintain that coin holders’ voices are important and wish to continue to elevate them as best as we are able.
There is one issue outstanding — that of the governance of major grants. We expect the Zcash Foundation will lay a path forward for reconciling the split vote and trust that they will steward that process well.
While the petitioning that some of the coin holders did on the blockchain was not planned and was non-binding, coin holders who did participate signaled strongly that they prefer a new and independent Major Grant Review Committee. The governance over the Major Grants did not receive the same level of community debate as the other elements and all participants may not have had the same information to reason through pros and cons of each option.
It is our opinion that it would be better for Zcash if the community establishes a Major Grant Review Committee as an independent third party rather than as a Zcash Foundation stewarded committee. This opinion is rooted in a belief that this would provide further decentralization and increased inclusivity for Zcash.
An independent third party would further decentralize decision-making for the Zcash community by adding another entity that is independent of both the Zcash Foundation and ECC, who jointly steward the trademark.
Additionally, no single entity would have control (directly or indirectly) of greater than 50% of the development funds. A new body would be an important signal and likely to encourage new entrants who are free to reason and support a broader group of Zcashers without any tie to the Zcash Foundation or ECC.
While we are comfortable supporting either path the community chooses, we believe this issue should be considered with care by this community.
Wow,
Congrats. It looks like everything works out pretty much as expected. @boxalex who wins the bet? or is it void now? this is pretty much not what either of us expected 8 months ago 
As for the way forward, I personally (I think) I voted for the zfnd to take control of the grants funding of the major grants. This was with reservation as to the finer details of who would be controlling the zec. (as it stands I trust the foundation more than a yet to be decided third party.)
I do think that an independent committee would be best, but lets not run before we can walk.
For example what would this committee look like? I believe that the vote reflects trust in the zfnd and also flexibility in what they would accept.
I believe for the very reasons @zooko has outlined above the zfnd has stated quite a few times that they don’t want to have control of the money so I look forward to some really good discussion as to how and what the way forward would be.
I think a good starting point would be to structure the protocol pay out addresses in a way that it would be easy for the zfnd to transfer these to a new entity, if/when a suitable solution to the committee can be found. (this is just the first thing that came into my head)
@daira Am I correct in thinking the code aspects of the protocol changes for the zip need to be nailed down sooner rather than later. but the politics bit is not that important for the moment?
With any luck this conversation will be a lot more relaxed and less emotionally charged.
I opened a dedicated topic for the Major Grants committee decision, summarizing the context. Let’s try to keep that discussion there, to make it feasible for people to keep up.
