ZCG Committee Election (June 2023)

What do you think should happen if one (or both) of the candidates garners less than 50% approval?

Both candidates running get on ZCG commitee no matter how many votes they get.

Is it ZFs position that in a scenario when there are only 2 candidates running for 2 open seats ZF would call an election?

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.


Hey @Beth, Have you received any requests to withdraw your candidacy, or are you voluntarily choosing to withdraw due to your inability to commit the required 15-20 hours per month to ZCG?

1 Like

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.


ZF should follow the process it promised voters when it opened the poll:

the two candidates with the most approval votes will become the new ZCG committee members with immediate effect.


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.)


Agree with this. Even though this is an edge case (super simple), unless stated beforehand we should follow the guidelines as written.


It might also be helpful to create a quick summary of “how ZCAP does polls”. That way, we don’t need to decide new rules every time, or check if the rules are the same as last time.

1 Like

Agree 100%. That’s why we’re letting the poll run its course.

The potential (but I think unlikely) scenario that we face here is one where Beth receives more approval votes than one (or both) of the other candidates.

Fortunately, we have somewhat of a precedent in how SJL’s seat on the committee was filled after she resigned - the seat was offered to the first runner up in the election (DC from ECC) who declined, leading to it being offered to the second runner up (@ml_sudo), who accepted. I see no reason not to take the same approach here.


I think we should collaboratively draft an “MGRC Elections Process” ZIP to govern future ZCG elections.

I’ve created a new topic for this.


I will not vote in this performative election. I encourage other community members to abstain from this pointless vote.

I don’t think it matters. What it does expose is how non-independent they truly are. It’s a good sign, because in the end it will allow ZCG to grow its reach.

It would be nice if this page were updated to reflect what’s going on with Beth’s candidacy, since that’s the link sent out via email to ZCAP panelists. I don’t look at the forums very often so I had no idea.

Try clearing your cache and reloading the page?

Also, check your Spam filter settings - an email was sent out to voters lat week notifying them of Beth’s withdrawal:

Archive from earlier today where Beth’s name is not withdrawn: Polling Opens for the Zcash Community Grants Committee Election - Zcash Foundation

(maybe was a cache issue on the side of your CDN or something?)

Even though I advocated for canceling the poll, I nonetheless put in my ceremonious ballot for GGuy and Wobbzz out of respect for their dedicated service to our shared mission :saluting_face:

I hope the confusion around the election doesn’t detract from their deserved appointments.


We sometimes have to manually clear the server-side cache when we update pages. My bad - I should have confirmed the change had propagated.

Of more concern is the fact you didn’t see the email. Can you check your Spam folder?

Of more concern is the fact you didn’t see the email. Can you check your Spam folder?

It’s not in my spam folder. I had searched “zcash foundation” earlier in my email account to find the link to the poll, and every email regarding the poll except the email discussing Beth’s withdrawal showed up because that email from “Helios Voting Bot” (the one you posted a picture of) happened to not contain the text “zcash foundation” in it.