Hi there, just saw I was tagged here. Not sure why. Is it for some kind of oversight?
I don’t see myself, nor ECC, as having an explicit oversight responsibility across the two independent organizations, since our only explicit organization is in the TM agreement which is specifically focused on what protocol specification gets to be called “Zcash”.
As discussed on the August 18 Zcash Protocol Hangout video that @jmsjsph links to in the spreadsheet, it sounds pretty clear that everyone there believes an oversight escalation / alarm bell involves convincing the CAP to convene and agree on some resolution.
I’ve seen @jmsjsph’s posts here and elsewhere about the voting mechanism, and it simply doesn’t seem like it rises to a substantial threshold of concern. I don’t personally believe any substantial number of CAP members would find the issue concerning. I haven’t seen almost anyone else express concern (although @kek seems curious to follow up, which seems like a good habit). The poll that @amiller held in this thread seems to substantiate that.
With that being said, even if this isn’t a “fire alarm” level of issue, I personally find it mildly concerning that there was confusion about the voting mechanism. I personally consider the change from precedent (5-of-N to n-of-N) to be very minor and nonconsequential. Also, I personally think announcing that change 20 days before voting is plenty of time, because I don’t believe it affected candidate applications, candidate campaigning plans, voter plans, and only very inconsequentially the vote itself.
For myself personally, I just can’t see how n of N versus 5 of N would make much difference at all, but I haven’t studied voting mechanisms much, so I don’t have any solid argument.
On top of that, I definitely don’t understand how that difference would favor insiders. If anything it seems like the opposite: approval voting would lead to stronger results for less known new-comers, because a voter can decide in isolation if a new-comer candidate is good or not rather than whether or not to spend a limited vote on a new-comer instead of placing it towards a “likely” (ie insider) candidate.
PS: since we’re discussing that video, I’d like to point out that I believe the spreadsheet @jmsjsph links to takes quotes out of context in a misleading manner. I recommend listening to the larger back-and-forth between myself and @secparam about the “fire alarm” starting at 49:00. It’s clear that @secparam isn’t talking about the announced voting scheme as “undermining … democratic ideals” but rather a more drastic post-hoc appeal to diverging polls.