Community Call Recap 6
Another week, another Community Call. The attendance was low this time, which is rather surprising considering the topics being discussed and the impact the participants can hold in the future of Vortex, and DAOs in general. But the work continues, and progress is being made.
The main topic of this call was Article 7 and Article 8 of the Humanode Charters, along with a discussion concerning the upcoming updates and coordinated tests of the proto-Vortex.
Article 7 talks about the Veto power vested in Vortex. The first being Citizen Veto, a Veto that can be passed with 66.6% +1 of all participating Citizens, and the second being the Chamber Veto.
The Chamber Veto is a rather new and intriguing concept that gives power to the Chambers to veto resolutions that were passed by a large Chamber that perhaps has an overwhelming number of Governors and Citizens. What makes it interesting, is that in the Chamber Vote, the Chamber that calls for a Chamber Veto must first gain 66.6% +1 of the votes to call for a Chamber Veto. Once the resolution passes and the Chamber Veto is initiated, each chamber, excluding the Chamber that the Veto was called upon, will vote on whether their chamber agrees with the Chamber Veto or not. If 66.6% +1 of the voters agree to the Veto, the Chamber gets “1 vote” that agrees to the veto. If it does not pass, the “1 vote” is listed as a “No” vote.
If 66.6% +1 of the Chambers agree to the Veto, the Veto is imposed.
Article 7 — Veto Mechanisms
7.1 Purpose. Veto mechanisms exist to deter capture and correct error without permanently disenfranchising lawful consensus.
7.2 Two Veto Types. The system recognizes two veto mechanisms: (a) Citizen Veto; and (b) Chamber Veto.
7.3 Citizen Veto — Threshold and Effect.
(a) Threshold. A Citizen Veto is enacted when Citizens vote to veto an approved decision by the Citizen threshold defined by protocol, which shall be not less than sixty-six and six-tenths percent (66.6%) of Citizens casting a veto decision, computed by protocol.
(b) Effect. Upon a valid Citizen Veto, the decision is remanded for reconsideration and may be resubmitted through the ordinary process.
(c) Breakability. A Citizen Veto may be applied at most twice to the same decision. If the same decision is approved for a third time through ordinary procedures, the Citizen Veto shall no longer be available for that decision.
7.4 Chamber Veto — Multi-Chamber Procedure.
(a) Internal Chamber Veto Vote. Each Chamber may separately vote on whether to veto an approved decision. A Chamber counts as “vetoing” only if it passes a veto decision pursuant to its internal vote, quorum, and approval thresholds as implemented.
(b) Chamber-Count Threshold. A Chamber Veto is enacted if at least sixty-six and six-tenths percent (66.6%) of all Chambers then existing have vetoed the same decision.
(c) Effect. Upon a valid Chamber Veto, the decision is voided and shall not take effect.
(d) Unbreakability. A Chamber Veto is not breakable. Approval of the same or substantially similar decision through repeated ordinary attempts shall not override a Chamber Veto. A materially revised proposal may be submitted as a new decision subject to all ordinary requirements.
7.5 Coordination and Timing. The protocol may define veto windows, ordering constraints, and procedural specifics; where not defined, veto procedures shall be implemented through the governance interfaces consistent with this Article.
Much of the discussion focused on the implementation and the safety measures to prevent irreparable damage before the Chamber Veto passes due to the difference in timing, or measures to prevent rampant use of the Veto power.
Further discussion is needed here, but in addition to the discussion, it was agreed that some coordinated testing of the Veto mechanism will be required on the proto-Vortex.
When the time comes, we would like to invite a large number of Community Members to participate in this critical test.
We also went over Article 8, although the participants mostly agreed that Article 8 was straightforward and would most likely not need much adjustment.
Article 8 — Cognitocratic Measure
8.1 CM Award. Upon acceptance of a proposition by a Chamber, the proposer shall receive CM. In addition to voting “Yes,” approving voters shall input a numeric evaluation; for illustrative simplicity, the evaluation scale is assumed to be one (1) to ten (10). The average of valid inputs becomes the CM awarded.
8.2 Non-Empowering Character. CM is a subjective contribution indicator and shall not, by itself, confer additional voting power or mandate.
8.3 LCM, MCM, and ACM. LCM accrues per Chamber. MCM equals LCM multiplied by the Chamber Multiplier. ACM equals the sum of all MCM across Chambers.
8.4 Setting the Chamber Multiplier. Any Governor may submit a Chamber Multiplier on a scale from one (1) to one hundred (100) for any Chamber in which they have not received LCM. The Chamber Multiplier shall be the average of valid submissions. A Governor who has received LCM in a Chamber is locked out from setting the multiplier for that Chamber.
8.5 CM in Chamber Inception. CM outcomes for chamber inception, if any, shall be as implemented by protocol or specified by GC-adopted procedures.
8.6 CM in Chamber Dissolution. In dissolution, outcomes shall be contextual and shall be specified by the dissolution proposal, including potential retention or loss of CM as implemented by protocol.
Finally, it was announced that the proto-Vortex will be going through a wipe and reboot this week. A large number of bugs were hot-fixed throughout the past 2 weeks; however, it was decided to stop the hot-fixes for the timebeing, and go through with a clean version release with all patches applied. Once the reboot happens, it will be time for more testing, and then the launching the proto-vortex with real proposals and real voting..
The next Community call will focus on Articles 9 and 10, along with some real-time testing of proto-Vortex. Hope you will all be able to make it there!