It seems like the person voted to the top is going to have a lot more to consider than just their one project they are pitching. There are a lot of funds at stake now. I think we should step back and look at who is the going to be the best consensus builder/leader/decider of projects/etc. rather than “person with the best project pitch”.
I would like this person to surround themselves with technical advisors like the EOS Foundation is doing. I will hopefully vote for someone most likely to lead and make good decisions over a lot of resources.
I will be adjusting my thought process in relation to my vote.
What are your thoughts on this?
2 Likes
As I expressed way back in the first trial election I was a bit taken aback with the almost complete focus on pitching products, your own or others. As EdenOnEOS develops and grows there is a need of more. This includes candidates history, character and governance experience. This if we seek to develop a better governance model over all. I totally agree there is a need to rely on a range of trusted technical people and also listen to the wider EOS community.
1 Like
Very well said.
I also think we should consider more time for the election. Why box ourselves into a few minutes to make a case? Why not even a day for each level? This would also help when there are technical difficulties like happened in the last one where the subsequent elections were impacted.
The vote could happen as soon as there is consensus, but people could invest more time in educating themselves on the elector if they want, and it would make it easier, as far as schedule at least, to participate.
1 Like
I believe the format with 40 minutes per group meeting is adequate at this stage. It is a first official election and will still serve to test also the software built which for now sure seems smooth. Agree no time research candidates properly and something to consider since not everyone a good judge of character and similar. The coming months will definitely be an interesting time.