Content
@
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
gifting folks with no prior record of action in governance nouns has proven to be unsuccessful prop 542 - nouns to seth, eric, chris, neil "Their participation in governance will have a significant impact on our community" noun 336 - no votes :( noun 67 - 15 votes, 2 vwr noun 774 - 6 votes, no vwrs noun 69, no votes :( prop 525 - noun to john hamon "If awarded noun 778, John is eager to participate in governance, expressing interest in delegating his Noun to community members who support creative initiatives." noun 778 - no votes :( prop 521 - matt downey noun 301 - 69 votes :), no vwrs :( would still consider this a success though prop 610 - lets play nouns noun 895 - 6 votes noun 863 - 3 votes noun 754 - 6 votes
7 replies
1 recast
27 reactions
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Not trying to be mean or call people out -- I just mean to point out that there are many ways to participate in governance without owning a noun, and when someone claims they will participate but they have no prior track record of engaging it should set off some flags
3 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Peterpandam
@peterpandam
Unfortunate precedent set that we can't walk back from.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Michael Gingras (lilfrog)
@frog
Well, I think if there’s a proposal that is directly rewarding an individual, it’s easy enough to check their gov participation and its totally empty then im not convinced it’s going to be any different. Seems fine to chance the precedent that we’d expect the recipient to have participated in some capacity in the past. I’m not bullish on the “it would be good for the brand for this person to hold a noun” case
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
