Additionally, we’d like to clarify that delegates are free to post their rationale & voting choice to the forums during the election. This was a topic discussed during the temperature check for shielded voting, but was admittedly an overlooked aspect in the recently passed Election Standards. Since no specific guidelines restricting delegates from communicating rationale were included, we feel the best course of action is to let delegates retain the optionality of making their positions public.
While this may seem to go against the core premise of shielded elections, as pointed out by @krst during the first discussion on shielded voting, it keeps discussion lively during the voting process and if information is made public that perhaps changes a delegate’s mind, they can always update their vote on Snapshot. Furthermore, we believe it would be very difficult for a delegate to strategically vote based solely on forum rationales, as it would only give a partial picture of the current standings. After the trial period, the topic will be rediscussed and clarifying language will be added to the procedures for the onchain vote.
Lastly, as outlined in the procedures, it is the responsibility of the proposal author or entity/individual managing the election to monitor post-election for breaches of the Responsible Voting Policy and instances of suspected collusion will be investigated by the Arbitrum Foundation.