Thank you @JoJo for identifying a few additional edge cases. We have updated the language of the proposal to hopefully make things more clear in regards to neutral voting and equal distribution of voting power in a weighted election. Additionally, our team is in the midst of another proposal based on other points raised in @Bob-Rossi’s previous RFC to standardize non-security elections. In it we will suggest some other guidelines for proposal authors such as making sure there is always a method to abstain or remain “neutral”.
@pedrob, thank you as well for the thoughtful response. Incorporating COI disclosure requirements into the actual proposal template is an interesting idea and if the DAO wishes, is something we can work to include in the larger DAO operations proposal & delegate code of conduct that will seek to update the Constitution.
@Pepperoni_Jo3 you bring up an excellent point regarding the specific language used to describe COI and close associates. This highlights the nuanced nature of COI discussions and is why we started with a temperature check rather than a full code of conduct policy. The DAO may indicate that it does not want a strict-self voting policy and therefore discussing exact language is not even needed. Overall, we acknowledge that the definitions presented are likely far from perfect, but our hope is that this vote will help indicate the general direction the DAO wishes to take regarding COI.
To reiterate the purpose of this proposal, no policy, guideline, or social contract will be adopted as a direct result of this vote. In addition to sparking a conversation, it is designed to help us understand overall sentiment to inform what clauses and language to include in a future, more comprehensive delegate code of conduct proposal.