@Wobbzz has announced that they are resigning their seat, and will stand for re-election
Anyone can stand for election (and existing members can stand for re-election). Prospective candidates simply need to nominate themselves by submitting a forum post (ideally five paragraphs or less) in the governance zcg-elections category, announcing their candidacy, and outlining their priorities and vision for Zcash.
The deadline for nominations is 09:00 UTC on Monday 12th June 2023. UPDATE: The deadline for nominations has now passed.
We will add a list of candidates to this post, and candidates will be added to the (@ZCG_Candidates) forum group.
Read this blog post, which contains important information about the election process, the process of becoming a ZCG Committee member (which includes undergoing KYC, and completing a conflict of interest declaration), and
Does ZCAP need to go through the performance of a vote when there are only 2 candidates running for 2 open seats? I think its a waste of ZCAPs time. There is no contest. Both candidates get on the commitee by default.
To me, the least confusing thing would be to cancel the poll with the explanation of why. The reason is, people may be like “wait, why do I even have to vote?” and get annoyed at having to spend time voting/figuring out what happened for no reason. This may turn people off to paying attention to ZCAP in the future when their time was wasted now.
Also, people may just say “forget it” and we get a low turnout, which doesn’t really look good and also could theoretically be used as evidence of ZCAP members delinquency when they, quite rationally, decided not to vote this time.
Lastly, maybe some people are confused/don’t get the message, and still vote for Beth leading to less than 50% for Brian and GGuy for no good reason, which would cause further confusion and time spent figuring out “what this means”.
There is a big problem with ZCAP because they seem to have a poor trend of only getting about 65% participation in their elections. The process needs reformed so that all of ZCAP is accounted for as voting either 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. Abstain
In a circumstance where open seats need filled (either ZCAP, ZCG, or anywhere else), the candidates should be required to receive a minimum support level of Yes Votes, vs No votes
After the recent call, and with their forum threads, I’m in support of placing both of the candidates to the ZCG committee seats. Cheers to @Beth@GGuy
I think it’s important for voters to understand how the results of the vote will be interpreted, prior to voting.
I originally voted with the understanding that the candidates who received the two highest numbers of votes would be elected. My vote changes (and I’ve resubmitted my vote) to match what I’d like if >50% approval is how the results are going to be interpreted.
I think the best thing to do would be to start a fresh poll with an explanation of how the votes are going to be interpreted directly in the question on Helios, or possibly even allow some time for other applicants to put themselves forward. The risk of creating a new poll is that some people who already voted might think they’ve already voted and not vote in the new poll.
I don’t have any strong opinions on how we interpret this vote (>50% sounds reasonable to me), just want to ensure voters understand how their votes are going to be interpreted.
If ZCG would have voted earlier to have Beth as ZCG outreach coordinator, GGuy and Wobbzz would have been running for 2 open seats.
What does ZF do in such a circumstance? Does ZF call an election? Do the candidates automatically get elected? Does ZF keep the candidate nominations open indefinitely until there is more than 2 candidates running? If ZF does call an election for 2 candidates running for 2 open seats; does the candidate that gets less than 50% approval not get elected?
Its been more than 12 hours since Dan posted ZCGs intention to have Beth on as ZCG outreach coordinator. I expect ZF to move quite quickly to resolve this.
I look forward to ZFs response to mine and other community members questions and concerns.
Changing the voting rules in the middle of a poll confuses voters, and leads to questions about the reliability of the poll result.
If we want to require 50% voter or panel approval for future votes, that sounds like a great discussion to have. (But only after this poll has finished, to avoid confusing voters.)
Personally I would prefer some kind of preferential voting, because it gives voters a way to express a more nuanced opinion on who they want elected. This is particularly important when there are a large number of candidates for a small number of positions. But it can matter even when there are three candidates for one position. (Or four for two.)