You are clearly not in good intentions in having a discussion right now, because what you are suggesting right now is contradicting with your own previous posts.
It was you who were accusing the team is not following the DAO v1.1 procedure (which requires formal voting denoted by staked CKB), now you are suggesting that they just vote on Metaforo and “get things over with”.
Nothing from my side, and I hope you realize what you said as a leader of the community carries different meanings whether you like it or not.
I originally didn’t want to reply to this post, because this is just some personal feelings of haoyang.
But the discussion gradually became chaotic, and I have to clarify some things.
At the beginning, there was no problem at all. Phroi pointed out some issues in the code, so the dao1.1 team decided on their own to postpone the M2 milestone to fix the remaining issues in the code.
The turning point came when phroi proposed an alternative solution. Because this meant the development direction was no longer about patching the existing dao1.1 solution, but about completely rejecting the existing technical solution of dao1.1.
Especially since phroi pointed out at On-Chain Tally: DAO v1.1 Limits and a Deposit-Paired Voting Proposal - #13 by phroi that the existing technical solution of dao1.1 constitutes a modification to the meta-rules.This is a very serious accusation. Because the dao1.1 proposal that passed through community vote clearly stated that dao1.1 would not make any modifications to the meta-rules.
At the same time, matt also posted the following content in the tg group.
This is what led me to post a very long post On-Chain Tally: DAO v1.1 Limits and a Deposit-Paired Voting Proposal - #14 by david-fi5box, raising the issue of our inconsistent understanding of meta-rules, and stating that we need to wait for the final official conclusion.
Because by this point, the matter had already gone beyond the scope of technology and entered the realm of community governance.
Additionally, I want to declare once again that I have never believed that any specific person’s actions have formed an obstacle to dao1.1, nor would I call on others to “take action.”
What I have consistently claimed is that clear rules are needed, as well as a clear process for what to do next.
And I have been trying to bring the issue back into the technical realm. I even suggested to baiyu and matt that a dedicated technical expert panel be established to review dao1.1’s technical solution. This was advice based on my experience in software development, but it seems matt believes this does not conform to the spirit of dao governance?
I think I’ve said everything I can say.
What I want now is just a formal verdict, even it sounds not conform to the spirit of dao governance.
You seem to be suggesting that the dao1.1 team can ignore the accusations you and phroi have made against dao1.1’s technical solution and continue advancing according to the project’s existing timeline?
As the technical leader of dao1.1, I would not choose to do so.
Because the accusations you have raised are so serious, if I chose to continue pushing the project forward, one can imagine how much criticism the project would face.
I neither retreat nor advance; I simply wait in place for the verdict.
This is certainly very bad for the project team, but I believe it serves as a kind of catalyst for community governance.
