I believe the ZAP is not a competitor to the others, so why is that relevant? It requires a body PRECISELY because it doesn’t require consensus changes in the code. It can always be ratified separately later.
Further, it is the ZAP’s argument that textually they are in the spirit of ZIP 1015. It is only fair that the other interpretations be textual too.
Really? The ZAP ZIP says to keep the funding stream as specified in ZIP 1015. It cannot be ratified later without consensus changes in the code if the funding stream is no longer as specified in ZIP 1015 in the meantime. It’s a competitor to the others because they are all about what to do with that funding stream.
I believe it is about reforming ZCG’s internal structure, and it does not deal with the funding stream’s own existence. Nowhere in Add ZIP draft "Zcash Adoption Pool (ZAP)" by daira · Pull Request #1431 · zcash/zips · GitHub (official copy registered with PR #1431) says absolutely nothing about whether the funding stream should stay or not, only amending its requirements to disburse grants, which is compliant to the current cycle. That’s the whole REASON why it has no consensus changes, because it is purely about governance of the funding the ZCG already has, rather than dealing with what will be.
Second, it’s a simple logic flow:
But again, this is all @aquietinvestor territory to answer, not me.
I agree that it’s for others to decide, but as @daira has clarified (The ZCG Lockbox: One Tap Off, the Bigger One Left Running - #5 by daira)
| For avoidance of doubt, the `FS_FPF_ZCG_H3` funding stream SHALL continue at its |
|---|
| existing value and for the duration specified in ZIP 214 Revision 3 [^zip-0214]. |
But that isn’t in the official merge PR. The merge PR is what gets considered.
This was directly copied from the merged version you linked, starting at line 120 of the markdown file.
Oh. Wait. Then it’s me, sorry, I cloned an old version of the repository. “Revision 3” wasn’t in my clone…
Am I right to assume now that you can see how a reasonable person would say the ZAP ZIP is a competitor to ZIPs that propose to end that stream?
Yeah, 100%. But then the issue is that like me, a lot of people will mistake it for one that doesn’t, so it needs to be front and center on the ballot.
To clarify, we don’t know if @daira plans to accept the edits from @fabacab before the deadline, but if the review is being held up because it’s supposed to go to a body that doesn’t exist, then it might be moot anyway. Again, it seems unfair to me that some competing proposals would be kept from consideration for no fault of their authors.
Talk too tham and say don’t block any my or over any transaction just it’s not a reqwast its a plan from me
Its_Secret
Only a three day notice for proposals? That is very unreasonable.
I have a few that I am submitting regardless. (I just found out about this poll)
I’ve opened a few draft ZIPs regarding Zcash governance and funding. These are topics that I have thought deeply about for a long time.
Each has its own thread, so please comment there.
Coinholder votes
Zcash Community Grants
Accountability
These are drafts and starting points. Several have open questions listed in the text, and I’d welcome objections as well as support.
They went up shortly after the November 8th deadline for the current poll, I had them in draft state and raced to clean them up once I found out about this poll a few hours ago.
Can they be considered, or should they wait for a later round?
I don’t think they can be. The firm deadline has passed, and more crucially, these are purely governance decisions and thus should not be lumped in. If it makes you feel any better, our ZIP also crossed the deadline lol.
The draft ZIP for my proposal last year @Proposal to switch ZCG elections to Coin Holder Voting - #142 by thowar2 has been publish to github.
Like @emersonian’s ZIPs the ZIP publishing is a bit past the deadline (though the conversation is over a year old).
I encourage including all the proposed ZIPs on this topic so as to settle the related topics in one round.
I would highly discourage that. The ZIPs in the current round are competing: they all settle one question. Adding unrelated proposals to the mix may muddle the waters due to perception issues.
If it will be done that way, then the ZIPs originally proposed for the Dev Fund should be consolidated as ballot options on one question such as “What should be done with the Dev Fund”, as SCV/RCV, instead of separate ZIPs.
@thowar2 our (competing) ZIPs about the ZCG electorate are governance ZIPs that are separate and standalone from the ones above.
You and I (and potentially others like emersonian) should present our proposals for that seperately.
The same for the technical format changes unrelated to ZCG mentioned in this topic/thread.
Let’s not muddy the waters.
The current advisory poll is about the future of Zcash Community Grants (ZCG) and its share of the Dev Fund, not composition of the ZCG electorate.
This is the default, and is what will (continue to) happen if none of the other proposals obtain consensus approval from the polling, until the currently-implemented end of the funding streams in 2028.
Thank you to @emersonian and @thowar2 for taking the time to submit proposals. Unfortunately, those proposals arrived a few hours after the submission deadline of Sunday, November 8 at 11:59pm UTC.
After discussing this with the other organizations coordinating the poll, we’ve decided to uphold the deadline and exclude these proposals from this round of polling. The deadline was communicated in the announcement and subsequent reminders, and we think it’s important to apply it consistently for everyone who participated. Making exceptions now would make future deadlines harder to enforce.
Many of these proposals also go beyond the scope outlined for this poll. The primary focus is ZCG’s share of the Dev Fund, with room for smaller improvements that the engineering teams determine can safely ship within the upgrade timeline. Some of these changes deserve more time for discussion and review than this schedule allows.
We understand that some people will find this disappointing, especially given the short submission window. We hope the authors will continue discussing their ideas for consideration in a future poll.
I’ll follow up later today with the proposed poll questions and answer choices for public feedback.
We have much room to improve our governance.
It’s time to further formalize the polling and proposal process. It should at minimum disallow three day windows for proposals over a weekend.