@0xPhilipp, you asked about my motivation (post 41). It’s what my posts have asked for: that the Foundation follows its own Bylaws, and that whatever standard is applied to one Director is applied to all four. That includes the concerns in A272, which should be reviewed on the same terms as everything else.
You say I “previously posted a now-deleted personal attack” about you on Twitter, a claim you also made in post 38. In post 25 you reminded MaxP that Terra’s Code of Conduct and Community Guidelines emphasize “constructive criticism supported by evidence” and “avoiding personal attacks”, and you objected to his “unbased personal accusations”. I’d ask you to meet the same standard: share the evidence for that claim, or withdraw it along with the other personal accusations in posts 38 and 41.
Whether I hold LUNA, and an X post from a year ago, have no bearing on whether anything I’ve posted is accurate. The guidelines set no such test: they say “your participation truly counts” and ask that criticism be “clearly backed up by data”. Every point I’ve made links to the Bylaws, a forum post or the chain. If any of it is wrong, say which.
In post 38 you also said widening the review would “derail” this process. Your last two posts turn from the proposal to me.
Where things stand
- Scope. After post 39, you added “the conduct of any Director where relevant” to item 3 (post 1, edited 19 October). Thank you. Item 1 still defines the Adverse Event by reference to A272, and under 2.6.2 the reviewer can act only on that Adverse Event. MB says “The scope of this prop is not going to be changed” (post 40).
- The premise. You and MB say the circumstances meet the Bylaws’ definition of an Adverse Event (post 1, post 35). Rose does “not believe a failed vote alone establishes an Adverse Event” (post 30). Vini says “The Foundation is functional” (post 3).
- The standing Supervisor. The Bylaws require one “at all times” (2.5.1). You say one was appointed under the Articles “from incorporation” (post 28). As of post 31, Rose was awaiting confirmation whether that appointment “remains current”. No Director has confirmed that the Supervisor is in office today, or that it has been asked to act. Vegas suggests waiting for Rose’s answer before going further (post 45).
Before voting, check whether:
- the on-chain text keeps item 3’s new wording, and item 1 defines the Adverse Event broadly enough for that review to reach it (2.6.2);
- the Board has confirmed whether the Supervisor named in the Articles is in office (2.5.1);
- the “established governance and conflict-of-interest procedures” A272 relies on have been identified, and applied to all four Directors.
I’ve said what I came to say. The thread is here for the Terra community to read and decide.