(FYI another thread has emerged in support of ZSAs, in case anyone’s only watching this thread.)
This is a really important point.
I am often discouraged by our chaotic governance, and erratic whiplash of community opinions. I keep my head up and build anyways. But it takes a lot of determination and resilience to build in the Zcash community today. That is a big problem, we can’t keep this up and expect innovation to thrive around here. We need to be inviting to new contributors. Zcash needs to be easy to build upon in order to cause the maximum impact in our world. It’s unfortunate that our ecosystem has such a propensity for high conflict communication and, well, drama. Today’s “developer experience” involves way too much uncertainty and many debates.
Our chaotic approach to governance is what invites conflict. It’s not clear how a proposal is ratified or how it can be reversed. We are trying to govern without a constitution, and no, our governance-related ZIPs today are not sufficient.
Why are we voting on something that’s already been voted on? How is a vote even called, who decides that? Who are our representatives and why?
It’s of course discouraging to people who supported a proposal that won a vote, and in some cases have been able to fundraise based on that outcome, to find out that their contribution might not actually get merged. How is that possible? This pattern is extremely discouraging to contributors.
All of this uncertainty is a symptom of bad governance which we must take a hard look at if Zcash is really going to impact the world. Flip-flops waste so much time and crush enthusiasm.
We badly need to rethink and formalize our governance. And I strongly oppose the notion that the richest coinholders should determine the fate of our human rights technology.
ZSAs being up for vote again is nothing short of chaos, and if the vote fails, the chaotic reality is that tokens will launch anyways.