A modest proposal.
Once the coinholder voting UX is magically fixed, and we see participation in Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Grants voting comparable to the current size of ZCAP (200 people), I suggest the following change to how ZCG seats are voted upon.
To either:
Five member ZCG board: 3 voted in by ZCAP, 2 by coinholder vote
OR
Seven member ZCG board: 4 voted in by ZCAP, 3 by coinholder vote
This ensures the “Senate” (ZCAP) guides decisions while the “House” (coinholders) has a meaningful voice without paralysing governance.
For now let’s not think about change to the rest of how ZCG functions; i.e. no change to how it votes on proposals, 1 year term for members, etc.
But, which form of balloting should we create under this revised scenario?
Let’s consider a change like this for ZCG before Nov 2028. And I mean seriously discuss it.
Please read this thread in its entirety before weighing in. It will give more context, and also show just how much insiders have pushed for (and made) positive changes in governance already.
Now there is a switch to the Secure Internet Voting (SIV.org) platform for upcoming ZCAP voting, we have more options to make this kind of change. i.e. more is technically possible without too much heavy lifting and bespoke rabbit holes. I’ll let @dsernst explain.
P.S. Didn’t use @GGuy/@joshs’s terms Zodler Assembly, and Community Zenate, but “House” and “Senate” deliberately. Read the thread, and you will understand why.