I would like to see the ZAC, or something similar be added as a constituency for the zbloc.
Active and engaged community members of this forum which invest a lot of their own time and thought into zcash but may not have a huge amount coins to swing a vote deserve a voice in my opinion.
This can be administered through a one representitive and a helios poll
The LCWG acronym meaning is next to my nickname.
Thank you for your suggestion. Speaking of getting rid of new users with poorly written posts, this tone of discourse that you are showing up here is rather aggressive and unwelcoming. It’s more effective at dissuading people of participating than acronyms.
Let’s do this: I’ll use less acronyms and you be less unnecessarily ironic and provocative 
I disagree. Even though the process is not fully decentralized, nobody has hijacked the governance. In fact, coin-holders -I’m not a fan of coin-weighed-voting- voted profusely for the path decided. You have the right to not like it. But I honestly don’t think it has been hijacked at all. On the contrary, this time the community had way more participation than in previous occasions and it is my hope (and I think it’s shared across the community) that we can incorporate more voices in quantity and diversity.
[meta] (apologies for the off topic to the mods)
I’m sorry that you are upset. Everyone can be upset. Maybe this time the different ecosystem actors did not choose the path you think it is the best for Zcash. Still, it doesn’t mean that they won’t ever do it. You have very interesting ideas and I hope that with time you can be less upset and that you keep being a passionate Zodler as you always have been and continue to share your vision with others.
I take the acronym criticism as valid, I don’t like them either to be honest (I almost write ‘tbh’ 
). The same way as acronyms and jargon talk can be unwelcoming, that also is true for “not gentleness”.
If you may take an advice from another passionate Zodler, feeling upset doesn’t entitle anyone to be “not gentle” to others in any way. It’s ok to be upset. Maybe when we feel that way, we might better draft that post and leave it for later. 
Happy Friday and apologies for the off-topic
I don’t think you are wrong. You have very valid concerns.
These are very important questions you are asking.
If you have identified (or belong to) a group of zodlers that is not participating, it would be great that you could articulate what’s needed for them to be an active part of the discussion and the decisions made.
I am digging into other governance models that include both governance and funding-based elements. Optimism’s is interesting (ht @ml_sudo). Does anyone have any experience working within it?
I think it’s interesting to look at a current governance issue through the lens of what might be under different models like the zBloc suggested here.
Let’s use the current Network Sustainability Fund (NSF) decision as a current governance issue.
Under the current model, we need to somehow get to clear community consensus. I believe ZF intends to poll ZCAP to inform their position, ECC will poll ZAC to inform our position, and think there should be a poll of coin holders. However, unless there is clear consensus, the change would not be implemented. But what is clear consensus? It’s highly subjective.
With the zBloc, I believe the process would become more clear. The NSF implementation would not be included in any network upgrade until the majority of constituents signal approval by signing with their key.
If, for example, the initial constituent set included: ZCG, coin holders, ECC, ZF, a group of core engineers, ZecHub, and Shielded Labs, the implementation would be scheduled for a network upgrade as soon as 4 of the 7 constituents signs.
A constituent would signal either disapproval, or “wait,” by withholding a signature.
As an example (all hypothetical), let’s say Shielded Labs, ZCG and Coin Holders (perhaps through a process managed by Hahn) signed in support of inclusion of the NSM in the next NU (NU7), one more party would need to get on board. Let’s say the core engineers were on board, but not until a future NU. In that case they would not sign until after the NU7 inclusion deadline had passed, which would then trigger inclusion in the next NU (NU8).
Is this how we would like to see governance work? What are the downsides as compared with the current or alternative models?
I like it!
I have a question about individuals in multiple constituents. How will that be managed in a transparent way? For example @aquietinvestor would be in multiple constituents. Is this even possible to manage?
This model has always existed and consensus has never bothered anyone when making decisions, but is it now that we have to question all of this?
When or if we move to coin-weighted voting only the community will have even less chance of democracy. Right now, when people who care have clear criteria for getting a vote through ZCAP things don’t look too bad.
I find it controversial, because it turns out that someone will have two votes, and if the person is not an engineer and not a ZecHub member, he will have no vote at all (it will be negligible, because it is diluted in the mass of strategic holders). ZCAP puts no conditions on who I am and gives me an equal chance with developers. Being on the forum for 100 days continuously allows me to make reasonably informed decisions.
ZecHub is open to the public, just like this forum is. If folks want to join the DAO, by all means put a proposal in. I think being engaged will help success rates! In my mind we want engaged community members who will actually vote. Coin votes for those who come from backgrounds that are unable to participate.
This is absolutely true and I know it, however it is a deeper level of penetration than forum and it is not suitable for everyone.
I don’t think there will ever be a consensus here that will suit everyone. But zBlock looks like a step backwards from ZCAP to me. Like an attempt at privacy in a closed club of ‘those who understand’. The real block.
The glass is there, and you’re viewing it half empty. I see the opposite. I see the most engaged folks having a larger voice because they are doing more work in the ecosystem. They have more eyes on the ground, and in the sky, and perhaps that matters. Everyone can vote with the coin vote, OR become more engaged if they want to voice change.
Appreciate your perspective!
As I’ve written before, I’ve become more relaxed about everything. I just voice my thoughts in each thread when I have them. I am sure that the community will choose the right decision on any issue and then I will defend it like all of us, as if it was my own decision.
ZCAP is an advisory group for the ZF. It was never protocol governance.
Until last year, governance was a 2 of 2 multisig between ECC and ZF under the trademark agreement. That no longer exists since ECC exited in order to decentralize power.
zBloc spreads the power out to more community constituents, including coin holders, with a k/n multisig.
And yet it was ZCAP that made the decisions to extend the developer fund in 2020.
They advised ZF. Zooko decided to agree and Dodger and Zooko codified the decision with personal signatures on a piece of paper post to Z.cash. Centralized and archaic.
The community overwhelmingly rejected the ZCAP as the source of truth for decisions on the lockbox last year and conducted its own polling to be more fair and inclusive.
Current governance requires “clear community consensus” for any protocol changes. It’s not a ZCAP decision.
I’ve participated in all three polls and I’m already confused about it all provided I’m following closely. There has been some juggling of polling, voting, other options. All I remember is that it all roughly corresponded to a single result, so which version was the ‘decision’ I don’t know.
UPD
It still seems to me that the fact that ZF administered ZCAP does not automatically make ZCAP under the control of one entity or another.
Just as if ZF or FPF administers ZCG - this does not impose any restrictions on me either. I say this as a member of ZCG. I know this for a fact, that no one is trying to influence my thoughts and the way I discuss grants.
I don’t understand the emphasis on ‘this is advisory group of ZF’. No it isn’t. What is ZF? It literally was done to serve the interests of the community. So it’s a Zcash advisory group. The ZF does not restrict members in any way and does not decide who gets to be a member. Who in this thread is not a member of ZCAP, show of hands?
Now in the NSM branch, organisation A is saying that organisation B shouldn’t do its job because organisation C is running out of time. This ignores facts from organisation B and C. Sorry, but I trust this decision-making scheme much less than I trust ZCAP.