I agree with @olimpio comment. Even though the partial result of the vote was recorded, it is now in a comment on a post that will eventually be lost in the forum and only those who participated in this thread will remember it.
The purpose of the temp-check is not only for the proposers to obtain detailed feedback and certainty about the widespread support or lack thereof for a proposal. It is also to keep a record of how the DAO voted, to maintain an easily understandable and accessible database to understand “what the DAO wants,” and even more importantly, what it does not want.
If we erase everything that seems to be disapproved (this was the partial result, although it’s impossible to know the final outcome), we won’t have a detailed record of what is not wanted, and as a result, it will be more difficult for third parties that bring new proposals to understand the general sentiment of the delegates. Note that Tally is not an ideal source for this kind of data, as everything put up for a vote there is generally known beforehand to be likely approved.
In this specific case, for example (although it would be the same in any case), a new participant in the DAO (delegate or stakeholder) will find it more difficult to understand the reasons behind the content and/or modifications of the future proposal. I believe that we should always strive to facilitate the understanding of the processes and motivations of governance for those who are not immersed in it.
The more information available, the better. Not the other way around.
Although it is not expressly stated in the constitution, Section 2 of the same states that “If an AIP fails the temperature check, or has not undergone a temperature check, as a matter of good governance practice, it is recommended that voters strongly consider voting to reject it.”
A logical interpretation of this good governance practice implies the intention that the results of proposals on Snapshot should be maintained so that they can be known by the voters. However, a discussion about interpretations may not be very meaningful. It would be good to explicitly state that a vote on Snapshot should not be deleted unless it contains some technical issue.
On the other hand, part of the delegates’ commitment to the holders is to participate in debates and vote on proposals. This is what they have committed to their delegators. Proceeding in this manner is to erase their work, something no one is entailed to do.
Finally, I believe that Plurality Labs is also harmed, as by waiting, you could have obtained detailed feedback from a greater number of delegates who had not yet voiced their opinion, and have an even greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal for its improvement. That’s the whole point of the Snapshot voting.
This opinion is my own and does not reflect the one of SEEDLatam Gov.