It's unfortunate indeed. In the UPC we manage, the overall Community Sentiment is positive, which we ensure it remains. However, there will always be folks complaining whilst showing little effort in the back to ensure and support change when the opportunity presents itself. It is a sad reality.
I lack the creativity unfortunately to think of a better alternative solution than this to open up an opportunity for the community to let it's voices be heard. I'm a sales guy, not very tech-savy from an engineering, building and designing perspective. So I wouldn't be able to think of an alternative way as to know.
We'd want community engagement, we'd want as much community members to vote, but at the same time we'd also not just want everyone to vote with a standard YES (for reasons that; the proposal is a well written sales pitch to holders but not necessarily in favour of the XDCNetwork, the author is a friend, associate or has many followers on Twitter e.g.). Just thinking out loud here, but perhaps an alternative would be something like 'voting power', not necessarily retrieved from the Amount of Holdings as it could create a centralized monopoly effect of big bag holders. But perhaps something like voting credits. Members only having X amount of votes periodically (week, month, quarter e.g.) so they better think through what to vote on. However, this would then also limit engagement and decrease overall voting numbers across all proposals, and would also affect legitimate proposals.
Proposals can be put forward with great ideas, initiatives, proposals to improve scalability, technical capacity, adoption, efficiency, even bring forward brand new ideas. For me the monetary requirements have been the biggest point of criticism thus far. It's indifferent to any random individual with the ability to vote which funds, at what amounts are spent on what. It's not their money after all and therefore they might think very lightly of it.
Proposals from Foundation Members, are different in my eyes as they in a way come from 'within', but we might want to look into Benchmarking the budgets and in particular for the Salary Ranges for others, or capping them to avoid random authors setting their own salaries. I see 10K USD a month in salaries being put out from individual contributor roles to (jr) engineers, coders etc. Blockchain experienced coders, devs and engineers might be scarcer driving up the price, but in my experience only Principal Engineers make that kind of money.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
It's unfortunate indeed. In the UPC we manage, the overall Community Sentiment is positive, which we ensure it remains. However, there will always be folks complaining whilst showing little effort in the back to ensure and support change when the opportunity presents itself. It is a sad reality.
I lack the creativity unfortunately to think of a better alternative solution than this to open up an opportunity for the community to let it's voices be heard. I'm a sales guy, not very tech-savy from an engineering, building and designing perspective. So I wouldn't be able to think of an alternative way as to know.
We'd want community engagement, we'd want as much community members to vote, but at the same time we'd also not just want everyone to vote with a standard YES (for reasons that; the proposal is a well written sales pitch to holders but not necessarily in favour of the XDCNetwork, the author is a friend, associate or has many followers on Twitter e.g.). Just thinking out loud here, but perhaps an alternative would be something like 'voting power', not necessarily retrieved from the Amount of Holdings as it could create a centralized monopoly effect of big bag holders. But perhaps something like voting credits. Members only having X amount of votes periodically (week, month, quarter e.g.) so they better think through what to vote on. However, this would then also limit engagement and decrease overall voting numbers across all proposals, and would also affect legitimate proposals.
Proposals can be put forward with great ideas, initiatives, proposals to improve scalability, technical capacity, adoption, efficiency, even bring forward brand new ideas. For me the monetary requirements have been the biggest point of criticism thus far. It's indifferent to any random individual with the ability to vote which funds, at what amounts are spent on what. It's not their money after all and therefore they might think very lightly of it.
Proposals from Foundation Members, are different in my eyes as they in a way come from 'within', but we might want to look into Benchmarking the budgets and in particular for the Salary Ranges for others, or capping them to avoid random authors setting their own salaries. I see 10K USD a month in salaries being put out from individual contributor roles to (jr) engineers, coders etc. Blockchain experienced coders, devs and engineers might be scarcer driving up the price, but in my experience only Principal Engineers make that kind of money.