Sorry not sorry. I didn’t vote because during Christmas and the new year festivities going on I’m not really in the mood of thinking about Zcash. Some of us are taking this period to shut out the internet and spend time with family.
The polls were opened on the 20th of December and they were closed on the 1st of January.
I understand that not everyone is Christian and not everyone celebrates in the same way, but could this poll had a better timing perhaps? Out of 365 days in a year, you had to choose the exact timing that most people in the Western hemisphere take time off from work?
Moreover, shaming before the 31st of December?
What should I have done, “hold my skis, I have to vote on the ZCAP poll!”?
Again, I want to highlight this: I understand that there are different religions and cultures - but I think it’s easy enough to pick better time periods.
The ZCAP polling period was shorter than the typical leave period over the holidays. So I don’t believe I deserve your “shaming”.
I gave this feedback in 2022, and the same thing happened in 2023. So I’ll be submitting my feedback to the Zcash Foundation board for consideration. I would encourage others to do the same.
The contact email can be verified here: FAQ - Zcash Foundation
But as far as I can tell, the anonymous concern form isn’t listed anywhere on the website.
I think we can both agree that we want active governance participation. People should participate because governance is accessible and meaningful. In other words, it’s easy to participate and one’s participation could have an actual impact on the project (people are not just rubber-stamping the ideas of others or constantly choosing between the lesser of two evils - aka U.S. democracy).
But while we agree governance participation is important, we may just disagree on how to achieve it. At the risk of repeating myself, I’d rather focus on positive reinforcement, not negative reinforcement.
If anyone is wondering why I care about this, it’s because I think governance is really important. It’s an essential error-correcting mechanism that allows for good ideas, and not just incumbents, to decide the direction of the project. Power should not be self-justifying.
When it comes to governance for Zcash, there are two paths: 1) create an effective governance system capable of error-correction, 2) you get what you get. I am in the first camp and have talked and worked with others over the past year who are trying to design such a system.
Yes, I think he would, if any effort were put towards better informing and empowering voters. I actually wrote to him before one of the ZCG elections in 2022 to give him my opinion of the election and remind him to vote. If you check the voting records, you’ll see he voted that time. I think this points to the fact that encouraging voter participation in positive and empowering ways does work.
Question: should people no longer active in this community and who repeatedly do not vote over and over again be allowed to continue having a place on the ZCAP? Is there a certain number of times or a threshold for a ZCAP member that does not repeatedly vote or participate?
I too want as much positive reinforcement and participation, but at some point you have to have certain boundary conditions in place because participation is not a right, it’s a privilege. Otherwise, let’s keep these folks as welcome members of the forum but replace them with people eager to vote.
i think the idea of 75% required voting will help and it’s a more positive approach while at the same time protecting funding from marginal ideas getting funded. i see so much negative ROI projects funded that a 75% hurdle likely would have saved us from.
The below blog post and thread have the relevant policies related to adding and removing members of ZCAP. Regarding the “use it or lose it” policy, the blog post states:
We are also adjusting the “use it or lose it” policy, as we feel that the previous policy of dropping members if they miss a single vote has resulted in some perverse effects. Going forward, ZCAP members who fail to vote in three consecutive ZCAP polls will be removed from ZCAP unless they have reasonable grounds for failing to vote. However, this policy will not apply to ZCAP members who would automatically be immediately eligible to rejoin ZCAP (e.g. contributors who have made a meaningful contribution to zcashd or Zebra).
. I believe more needs to be done to empower voters. Sometimes that empowerment is simply consolidating all the disparate information required to make an informed vote.
I stopped voting when I realized my posts were censored by the same ones running polls.
Voting is like giving credit to people that have none. You can indeed remove me from Zcap as I have nothing elsemore than what I already said. Peace.
@Joris you are back! Welcome. We need you so don’t “peace out” just yet. There is a lot of change here with @joshs leading the charge. You’re a smart guy and we need folks just like you.
. I believe more needs to be done to empower voters. Sometimes that empowerment is simply consolidating all the disparate information required to make an informed vote.