I appeal to the entire community to review consensus decisions in Ambassador Subgovernance in a decentralized and fair manner.
Yesterday (October 29, 2020), Ambassador Subgovernance approved by a majority vote of Initial Members a proposal to split Ambassador Subgovernance into two independent teams. This decision was supported by 5 active members out of 7. Here they are:
- Dmitry bitjudge, Ilona amalfica, Anesthesia V., Alexandr Vat - YES
- Michael Shapkin supported this decision in words but refused to vote. The correspondence has been saved and can be published.
#7 Ambassador Subgovernance Proposal: Split of Team and Budget - Status: PASSED
Forum topic with this proposal here Ambassador Subgovernance Proposal: Split of Team and Budget
A few hours later, I learned that Michael Shapkin had prepared a proposal that ignored the team’s previous proposal and decision. Here is this document:
I will explain the essence of what is written there:
One person proposes to the main Governance to annul the held and adopted consensus (vote of the Ambassador’ Team for the Split of Team and Budget), and by a strong-willed decision from above to approve the new membership of Ambassador Subgovernance members WITHOUT the team’s consent. In fact, it is coercion instead of decentralization.
It is very bad that the following definition is used as the argument in the draft document:
Several of the initial members taking it upon themselves as a small collective to make decisions for the entirety of the sub-governance based solely on their own collusive interests, and in less severe cases, simply treating it as a means to an income in exchange for little or no reciprocity.
Such a language is extremely dangerous because it undermines the foundations of decentralization. Here the fair majority of votes is replaced by the words “collusion of a group of persons”. If this practice becomes widespread, then the entire Free TON and ALL voting procedures can be considered in the future as “collusion of a group of persons”.
These are huge risks for Free TON’s decentralized governance principles. If accepted, you can say “Goodbye, decentralization.” Then any consensus and any independent vote with a majority decision can be overturned by main Governance forcibly. It is even more terrible than such a “solution” is proposed by one person in pursuit of his own personal interests.