[DECLINED] [VoNC] Vote Of No Confidence - Fight4ETH

[velvet kraken]

**Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) Process Initiated by Community Member @grave onyx & @native sandal **

Community member Rickytan77 has initiated a Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) regarding Fight4Eth. The detailed process for how this VoNC will be handled is outlined here:https://snapshot.org/#/ilv-gov.eth/proposal/0x49f16ecdf9bcd8df5a7e985fdc77c0ce2ea632b0eb729605453575ffdc61bb8e

VONC Complaint via @grave onyx & @native sandal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iv5r_QZixSD1r2GXgbP0hgCWRJMTQutr3d7zSexWeUo/edit?tab=t.0

Council Member @near fjord defence highlighted in Blue same document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iv5r_QZixSD1r2GXgbP0hgCWRJMTQutr3d7zSexWeUo/edit?tab=t.0

Results of Peer Evaluation from <@&1107754780744487002>:

**Overall Average: 2.0 out of 5 **

Next Steps:

• This post will stay active for the 5 days, and if it receives the threshold vote of 50 upvotes it will then escalate to a DAO snapshot vote.

[torpid moth]

It feels really bad to have a VoNC so early in the epoch with so much to be done... But just goes to show how hard it is to work with random ppl over the internet, that have different work ethics and live in different time zones.

Maybe someone with newborn twins and a full-time job shouldn't be taking any more jobs. Just saying.

We should definitely start disclosing what's everyone occupation when applying to council, maybe it would help everyone in their voting decisions.

I would also like to see @velvet kraken hosting an interview/debate among candidates before the elections so everyone gets a better understanding of who's running for council.

[velvet kraken]

As we've said in the past, I think these types of debates/campaigning type videos should be held by themselves or a third party. When TSG did them he wasnt part of the team and did them on his own and it took a significant amount of work to coordinate, schedule, record, etc. On top of other tasks. Not to say its not something Illuvium can't support or won't. Another example in the past is, the government themselves don't highlight the candidates for president, its 3rd party news outlets doing so. Some people may not want to participate in the debates/interviews but may still be perfectly qualified candidates imo and if we do this as Illuvium it could be seen as not giving them the same opportunity.

[torpid moth]

Rich I tagged you cause you're the community manager, not because you're on the Illuvium team. You just need to schedule like 1-2 dates here on discord and whoever wants to show up shows up. And hopefully you or someone else from the previous council can moderate the conversation.

[grave onyx]

Let's take to https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1059914967161241640

And try to keep the discussions focused about the topic at hand and around @near fjord

[hollow blaze]

I think it makes sense for Illuvium Labs to be uninvolved, but I do think Illuvium DAO should sanction such events. That doesn't mean Rich should have to do it. Quite the contrary, I think the Council should be responsible for doing it. IMC can be responsible for doing the ICC debate/interviews and ICC can be responsible for doing it for the IMC. If there's overlap in candidates running, that's easy to work around. My 0.02 on this topic anyways.

Edit: Sorry @grave onyx i'll take it to that other thread lol.

[hollow blaze]

I have a conflict of interest here so I want to stay mostly out of it, however, I have to voice that this statement of "if I stay on council this is how I will handle meetings going forward" is deeply troubling to me.

I understand tensions may be high between F4E and the rest of the council right now, but this breakdown of communication between parties, coming solely as a member of the DAO, is really concerning and possibly an automatic disqualification if not rectified.

That's all I'll say on the matter, wishing everyone involved the best and for a positive outcome for the DAO.

[wheat basalt]

Like I’ve said before multiple times. Election is popularity contest where you know nothing about any of the candidates (unless you take time to research it yourself) and where all candidates can lie as much as they can about all their expertise and experience and no one will ever check that. If not lie you can just skip the true.

On the topic. I think it’s very hard to say something from the outside as we know nothing about how it works on the inside.
I don’t really see anything wrong with what F4E did. I don’t agree with any of it and I wouldn’t want to vote for someone with said activity. But in the past we had great council members that weren’t active and that didn’t vote all the time or gave reasons for voting but were still voted again and again back into council.

[native sandal]

Naturally, since I am one of two proponents of this VoNC, I'm voting yes on this. I do want to clarify how and why I voted the way I did:

Collaboration is the only 1 that I gave. My observations from him were that he had a complete lack of initiative. Any involvement from him would have to be pulled out with considerable effort or he would sit back and watch idly how things would pass. Since we have only worked together once in the past two months, I may have been too hasty on that front. I would refer to the previous Marketing subcouncil who worked with him for 6 months whether they can relate to this.

I rated F4E's proposal development as a 3, the highest of all, since nobody from the ICC actually wrote a single proposal in these past two months aside from me (which sparked the 9 week "reimbursement clause" in the Beyond updates IIP's). I didn't want to be overly critical here, because I would similarly rate the other members with a 3 due to non-performance.

Across the remaining topics, there were not enough data points to give an accurate judgement as there were barely any instances where he actually provided value. I gave him two points on each of those three aspects.
I could have been consistent and voted 3 on all the topics, but at some point I had to draw a line. From my perspective we should be doing something since we are being paid. Anything at all.

To be more specific, he did vote and provided one-liner rationales, which rewarded him the 2 on governance participation from me. I did not observe any high quality rationales, however, so I would expect those short answers to fall through when a topic isn't as clearcut as the previous ones have been.

During meetings he did not provide significant knowledge, expertise or any insights from the community. Since this is from my perspective our main role and main time to provide information to one another, I judged fairly harshly with 2's for providing proposal evaluations as well as knowledge and expertise. When i say that, I mean it in the sense that Caveman had to ask him specifically to speak up before he would utter any words. These responses then would typically be confused or distracted, as if he was not paying attention to the meeting at all.

We are in a crucial time of development. We just got the beta out and have to really push to make sure team and community remain on the same page. Because of that, the team needs a proactive and hardworking ICC. I understand that he has two kids, and can be distracted because of that. Sadly due to his busy schedule that means he has not provided enough value, and as such, should make way for someone who would.

[wheat basalt]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/809220730608680990/1169370331903971458/Marketing.png?ex=672294fc&is=6721437c&hm=a7565076fd7c876c5a123159f6f2034f6f43d066e0c71c1ed21a9eb824565908&

This is the evaluation from the Marketing Sub Council.

[mossy owl]

I understand that it can be challenging to know what goes on inside the councils.. If there are specific questions you or others would like answered, please don’t hesitate to ask. To help foster better understanding and transparency, I will try to provide as objective as possible rational from my side and I’d encourage @near fjord to share his perspective as well.

There is a strong desire within both the community and the council itself to add more value. Right now, the council's requirements are minimal, with voting being the primary responsibility. However, at the start of this epoch, we came together with the goal of making the council role more impactful. Our vision was to go beyond the basics of attending meetings and voting, with a focus on building meaningful engagement, gauging community sentiment, and generating fresh ideas for DAO improvements.

My question to the community is this: “Has @near fjord reached out to you? Has he actively engaged in discussions that brought value or pushed for new perspectives? Has he represented your voice in the proposals he has voted on?” If the answer is yes, then voting for his removal may not align with what you’re looking for in a council member. If the answer is no, then the decision becomes whether the next in line might serve your interests better.

Let’s work together to create a governance structure that genuinely adds value to the DAO, whether that means raising the bar for council participation or exploring ways to make governance more impactful. At the end of the day, our aim should be to build a DAO that serves our community’s interests—not just as a tax front or formality, but as a meaningful system for driving growth and innovation.

I want to stress that decisions like this are never easy, especially when they involve a member like @near fjord . However, the DAO operates as a business, and we can’t let personal feelings stand in the way of our progress. I believe that if I weren’t actively pushing the DAO forward, I’d expect—and hope—that others would hold me to the same standards. In fact, I recognize that there may be more I could personally contribute to drive the DAO’s mission forward, and I take that as motivation to keep improving. Accountability is essential for us to grow and achieve our goals, and this expectation applies to all council members equally.

[wheat basalt]

I think it's unfair we can only the the peer evaluation of F4E and not from anyone else.

On the topic of Caveman. I totally agree with you, I think that the idea is to go "beyond the basics" and that the ICC should push and be as active as possible in most if not all ideas and proposals. But if I think that it doesn't that's right. F4E didn't come to ICC on accident, he was voted on by holders that hopefully knew what they are getting. As the scores and the activity is similar to what it was before during Marketing Sub-Council and he still got votes again.

I agree that raising the bar for council participation should be the priority. But we should be doing that other ways, lets get something firm, not just internal deal betweet members. That doesn't change anything for the upcoming election where it will again be the same old popularity contest where we know nothing about any of the candidate.

I would also say that your question for the community is really unfair. More than half of ICC never reached out to me. In the topics I cared about I didn't see all the other members of the ICC bringing value. Maybe he was the least active, but I think the questions are a bit unfair.

It really unfair to say that someone who got the most votes from the stakers is now not representing anyone two months later.

Also, we need to realize that with the current voting system it's enough that one person votes for you and you can be voted in. So in theory if he represents that one person isn't that enough? But I guess that's why we have voting even after getting enough votes here.

*For the record. I have never voted for F4E. I have never talked to him. I just think it's more important to improve ways of getting into Council and not remove someone that is not working on the inside with the same intentions as you.

[gray slate]

I agree with missionpoole. I personally didn't really find anything wrong with F4E's responses but the statement about continuing meetings by listening only will simply not work. @near fjord if you will attend the meetings normally I see no reason for myself to agree to this VONC but if you can listen only to the meetings then I think communication will suffer and I would have to agree to the VONC. Can you please confirm?

[acoustic tusk]

This is just my perspective - Council's role isn't like a 9-5 job where you can clock in, do the minimum, and clock out. Sometimes, the best thing to do is nothing. Other times, you need to do a lot in a short period of time. At all times, you need to be contributing and doing the best you can for the DAO. It's impossible to do that with the number of messages in council chats indicated in the VONC (36/1033), and while we don't have full visibility on what's happened in meetings, it sounds like a comparable amount of contribution in those meetings. It's early in the epoch, it's absolutely the right time to be charting a course for how the epoch will look, and a member not willing to take on responsibility or provide ideas and feedback can hinder the rest of the council.

I get that there can be challenges in time management, but those challenges cannot be the DAO's problem. Council is a paid role, and individual members managing their time is not the DAO's problem, or something the DAO should have leniency for.

As part of working with a team, not everyone needs to do everything. Not everyone should be active in every chat at all times, but they'd better be making it up in other areas, like knowing more, researching more, and contributing that knowledge to conversations. Or taking on additional workload in drafting proposals or collaborating with the community to bring proposals to a better state prior to voting. Based on the information in the VONC, that doesn't seem to be the case.

One-liner rationales for voting aren't great, they give the impression that the votes aren't being taken seriously. Since ICC advocates for the community, any acknowledgement of opposing viewpoints or a statement of the positives the community has identified would be a big improvement.

Based on the information in the VONC, this is a yes from me. I'd like for token holders to make the final decision on this, which is what happens if this VONC reaches the threshold.

[rich blade]

Then shouldn’t they be kicking Sam out

[urban parcel]

That is a SS from a peer evaluation from a past epoch

[rich blade]

So there’s at least a precedent for kicking out under performers bc there’s no way Sam would have continued right?

[urban parcel]

As far as i know all elected past council members finished their epochs.

[rich blade]

C’mon…no way he continued with essentially a D+ grade. What are we even talking about then.

[near fjord]

I see your perspective but I joined the community council thinking it would be more about engaging with the community which is what I like to do and I think I do a pretty good job of, which might be the reason I got so many votes. I will expand on this tomorrow once I have gathered my thoughts and can write it down in a readable way 😅

[polar gust]

On October 2nd these reviews were given. Fight4ETH found out you guys didn't think he was pulling his weight. Was this ever brought up with him before the review?
Oct 24 he didn't attend a meeting because Ricky had said he wanted to do a VONC.
What happened in those 22 days? How did you all deal with the issue? Why did it escalate to a VONC? Was a warning given first?

Is the Collaboration vote about how well a member collaborates with the other council members, with community or with both?

As for the meetings, you guys agreed that after 3 missed meetings a VONC would be enacted. Therefore, missing 1 meeting shouldn't have been listed as a reason for a VONC. Although, the statement about not attending any future meetings is concerning.

[young verge]

It isn't enough to simply highlight the perceived shortcomings of a council member to seek a VoNC imo. You have to also demonstrate that effort was made to support the underperforming member and that despite this, no improvement was measured. I see no evidence suggesting attempts were made to understand, help/support this member.

With that in mind I will not support this VoNC, instead I hope @near fjord takes all this feedback onboard and improves on the issues highlighted.

[acoustic tusk]

You're fine, and it's not like I dislike you personally or anything. This is all based on what's shared in the VONC, which should be evaluated by the DAO as a business decision. There can't be room for "Well I just like the guy", at least not from my perspective.

Getting elected and performing the role once elected unfortunately aren't correlated very much. You shared there that you'd listen to meetings via Sembly going forward, which is not sufficient for me. The back and forth of developing ideas and planning demands a bigger presence than just listening.

I can relate to not being the smartest person on a council, and certainly not on any topic, but it's also important to ask questions and improve your own understanding of what's being discussed. Some people in the community won't be experts on every topic either, and being able to bring that understanding to them is important.

I do appreciate that you've committed to improvement, but lacking initiative this early in the epoch is a really bad sign to me, misunderstanding the point of meetings is a bad sign to me. It's entirely possible there's just too much on your plate for the role at this time, which is also fine, but that can't be a cost the DAO bears.

I'll reiterate that this is not personal, and my yes vote is truly to have token holders have the final say. This is a preliminary step prior to direct voting by the ILV holders who are directly affected by council performance.

[near fjord]

I never got the impression it was personal and I thank you for your feedback

[young verge]

If the role of council member is only suitable for individuals with few real world responsibilities such as a no full time job, no kids ect. Then we're selecting from a very limited pool within the community. The fact that @near fjord couldn't attend a meeting because he was at work and this is now being held against him is ludicrous imo. The role must be flexible enough to accommodate people at all stages in their lives.

[limber sequoia]

Nothing personal against you @near fjord but those evidence are clearly enough for me to 👍 so it can go to vote

Council is a very important role and people should be kept accountable. People should get on council with the motivation to contribute and help the DAO, but has its based on community election and has a pay attached to it, we sometimes have people that represent themselves and get elected without the will or time necessary to do the work

The lack of meaningful engagement, let alone engagement at all alone is enough for me. You also showed a similar performance in epoch 8 when you didnt have newborn twins

If this doesnt pass i truly hope that this can serve as a wake up call and that at the bottom of your heart you have good intentions

I know it must be difficult to see your peers turn on you, but you cant attend meetings via sembly. If you stay on council you should own up to your previous shortcomings and do everything you can to restore their confidence. @lone parcel @grave onyx @mossy owl & @native sandal dont have bad intentions or anything against you, they just want whats best for the DAO

Thank you for bringing this up and doing the hard work of keeping others accountable Garf & Ricky. Excellent work on the doc 💯

[acoustic tusk]

That's not at all what I said. The time requirements are flexible, council members set their own meeting times as a group, and you can absolutely have a full time job and perform the role. Part of the rationale given was that newborns plus a full-time job was a cause for missing the meeting and contributing less than other members. There are 24 hours in a day, most people's job will take 8-10 hours a day, 5 or 6 days of the week. That leaves a lot of time for whatever else someone wants to do, including raising newborns and/or performing council duties. The rationale that there was a lack of time available with newborns and a full-time job suggests to me that ICC duties are third priority, and other priorities are interfering with the ability to perform the role. Completely fine to have other priorities, but if those priorities affect the ability to perform the role, that's not ok, and not the DAO's problem to solve.

[grave parcel]

I still to this day wonder how you are not still on the council. What a fumble

[mild cave]

Okay so I have had a chance to read the entire document. Now most of this I don't think necessary means someone is unfit for council. Honestly I've done an entire epoch or two during my lunch breaks at work and sympathise with F4E that something important came up and he missed a meeting. That being said if it's not a functional meeting time for him, if the vonc does not pass I hope the ICC can re evaluate the meeting time to better accommodate.

I also feel for him having many real world duties, obviously not every single lifestyle fits alongside council duties, it doesn't sound like this will necessarily be an issue from what I read and so I don't think it's a reason to pass a vonc either. However if F4E thinks it won't allow both to coexist, that's up to him and him alone.

The low peer eval score is not a good thing, but at the 2 month mark I don't tend to focus on it too much, and F4E said he'd be more proactive which is great.

The voting rationale issue was also a persistent discussion during my previous term on the ICC, It definitely needs a more clear identity.

But then we get to 2 points I don't love. The relatively small engagement in the discord, with 200 messages over 2 months. Now honestly this isn't too bad but for an ICC member id like to see it increase. That being said F4E has always been a bastion of Illuvium Twitter, and so it's not too crazy.

But the final thing unfortunately makes me have to upvote this :(. F4E said that he refuses to attend any meetings moving forward if he is to stay on the ICC. I understand he's likely feeling attacked at this time but honestly this isn't the response I'd like to see, and honestly it saddens me. Fight 4 ETHs positivity is a shining light for the Illuvium community and he needs his voice heard both in digital discourse and inside the ICC. If he remains on the council I hope he reconsiders and ups the dedication like his other responses indicate.

To be clear, I have not worked at all with F4E this epoch. I am communicating as an objective observer that read the same documentation you all did.

[wheat basalt]

Because he doesn't have a YouTube Channel and is not the part of any guild.

Is it true that peer evaluation was done only for F4E and for no one else? So we can't really compare his numbers to anything?

[young verge]

This is really fair and objective take. I wish we saw more of this and a little less dog piling

[mild cave]

To be fair. I have been on quite a few epochs now and so I have a unique perspective on the situation, from this side of the proverbial fence at least.

That's partly why I feel it's important I try lay out what I know, to help inform decisions either way

[mossy owl]

I will make it clear that we made a lettuce meet at the beginning of the epoch and this was and still is the best time slot for the whole council. The meeting time otherwise will be in the middle of the night for the majority EU. We have discussed doing a rotation, so that all members suffer equally, but the current times we have set were all agreed upon.

[granite cosmos]

Looks like two council members don‘t like another council member (or their views on important decisions) and want to cancel him. The normal stuff happening all the time. Fight4ETH: You have good reasons to stay. Let the next election decide if you did a good job or not. This is what happens when you have lots of money at stake and politicians (council members) having a say over how it gets doled out to their respective voters (YouTube/Guild members).

[mild cave]

I don't doubt that. I am just suggesting that maybe F4E should have been more selfish with his meeting availability maybe hahaha. And it's always worth re evaluating periodically

[granite cosmos]

A DAO with councils just sucks and will always suck. Better to give everyone the ability to vote or delegate votes. Politics sucks.

[lone parcel]

I’ll avoid repeating what others have already said, as I agree with much of it, especially with Caveman’s and Blickter’s stance. It’s clear that most of us share similar perspectives on this matter.

Instead, I’d like to offer my personal reflections and actions regarding this situation. When I first learned about the vote of no confidence (VONC), my initial response was to encourage those initiating it to speak with him directly first or at least issue a final warning. Roughly a month after we started, we conducted a peer evaluation, where he had the lowest performance. Some felt this evaluation alone served as an obvious warning and was a clear indication of the need for improvement. I can understand that view, but I believe additional communication before taking action could have made a difference. A direct conversation could have served as a wake-up call, possibly allowing him to do better or step down voluntarily and avoid the current proceedings.

To be transparent, he has, in my view, been largely absent from the council, both in terms of meeting engagement and council discussions. This low level of engagement might be understandable if he were actively contributing elsewhere, but I’ve yet to see a high level of effort in any area.

Regarding the missed meeting due to his work. I want to say that we would be lenient with people missing meetings if they give a proper explanation and provide value in other areas to compensate. As long as members strive to bring value to the DAO and give their best effort, I believe it’s acceptable for us to be engaged in different ways. However, as I mentioned, I haven’t seen any area where he has demonstrated much more than the minimum required effort.

My primary concern now is his recent behavior following the VONC. He has ceased attending meetings altogether and stated he will not attend any in the future if the VONC doesn’t go through, which I find unacceptable. We reassured him several times that meetings would focus solely on council work and that the VONC would not be mentioned. His official statement, confirming he doesn’t plan to attend future meetings, is disappointing. To me, this level of disengagement is unprofessional and concerning.

I’ve advocated for him in various instances, as I genuinely think he’s a good person with a good heart and with best intentions for the DAO. I value his contributions to the DAO and wish him nothing but the best for his personal life.

[wheat basalt]

I'll ask again. If there was a peer evaluation, why haven't we seen it and we only seen the one of F4E?

[lone parcel]

The evaluation you’re seeing is the one that other council members are required to complete for the individual in question in the VONC. The evaluation I mentioned from about a month ago was done in one of our meetings as a way to reflect on ourselves and gather feedback from fellow council members about our work so far.

[granite cosmos]

I could understand a Vote Of No Confidence over some serious issues, but not attending a meeting or not contributing much (in the eyes of whom?), has nothing to do with confidence.

Maybe his style is different, because he thinks the council should work differently ?

Fight4ETH: „This whole process has led me to reflect on the structure of the Community Council. I believe I have a different perspective from the rest of the council on how it should operate, so I’ll be working on an IIP to propose structural changes for the Community Council.“

[wheat basalt]

From Gov V3:

Responsibilities:
The Community Council's key role is to vet proposals and forward them to the IMC, ensuring community perspectives are integrated into decision-making. They are tasked with importing approved proposals into GitHub for voting and are mandated to vote on GIPs/GCCPs, a new proposal standard introduced to address specific governance issues. Their role ensures that community voices are effectively communicated and considered at higher decision-making levels.

Being in the meetings is not a responsibility for a ICC member as far as I understand.

It is welcomed and I would personally vote for someone who will attend them and who will start conversations and who will have questions on the topics. But holding him accountable for not wanting to attend meetings that are not required is a bit unfair.

I don't agree with him at all but I don't think it's a reason for VONC. In the end he got the most votes after all. And now people that didn't vote for him are angry that he isn't doing things same way as they are.

*Maybe I'm wrong about responsibilities of Council members but I can't find any more data anywhere.

[stiff swan]

I really hate seeing this witch hunt. @near fjord won fair and square. The community wants him in because he is consistently helping. He has sponsored 2 hyperion events. I know he is easy to talk to and work with. With all the time writing this up @native sandal @grave onyx you could have been doing something productive for illuvium. Not pointing fingers at co workers. This makes me sad overall especially seeing it come from people who don't even play the game and only come around during elections. Do your job, quit worrying about others @native sandal @grave onyx

[native sandal]

This was one of the reasonings that was brought up internally as well. However, in IIP-12 it states that "each council member shall attend and participate in official meetings at least once every two weeks to discuss pending proposals and items of significant interest to the game or community."

The point of IIP's is that they add on top of other proposals. ICCP's affect previous IIPs and restructure them to outline changes that should be upheld. IIP's do not affect those previous aspects.

Now, you could argue that the ICC meeting twice a week is too much, and that we can skip out on 6/8 meetings per month, but in the first meeting of the ICC we mentioned that we wanted to have as much presence in each meeting as possible.

You can also find further information in Governance V2 Appendix A clause 2;

[frozen canopy]

What a bunch of bitches!
Fight4Eth lives on X! Always promoting illuvium. He is the community outside of the inner discord clique. No wonder illuvium numbers are fucked. You hide in discord and dont build community.

[torpid plank]

I like fight4eth and think he deserves a chance to do better moving forward.

[wheat basalt]

But IIP-42 Governance V3 should not be affected with the previous IIPs?

[manic harness]

What is the tldr on this topic? I’m confused as I see Fight4Eth as a great community presence on twitter constantly keeping the community updated on news from the discord and team

[native sandal]

Previously we did not have Governance Improvement processes proposals or GCCPs changing the previous governance proposals. For that reason, we used IIP's rather than the newly introduced versions of proposals.

New proposals do not just completely disqualify all details of previous proposals, unless specifically stated. Governance V3 mentions how the specialised subcouncils are replaced with committees, but does not mention how meetings should become optional. That said, the rule that they are mandatory since IIP 12 and IIP-32 for Governance V2 should still be in effect.

Is Governance V3 affected by previous IIPs, yes. Is Governance V2 affected by Governance V3, also yes, on the aspects that are specifically stated in the proposal.

[grave onyx]

There is a set standard of how council should work and we went over this during our first 2 meetings - setting Council Expectations

We can bring up new ideas on how to improve the process and many have. Also, community members can do this also, but it is more difficult since they do not see fully behind the curtain

Council Members represent the community and that is not just in voting - you need to be active and participate with other Council Members. It has been 2 months and overall nothing of substance (quantity) value has been shared. Only due to the VoNC are these ideas being shared?

@near fjord I was going to advise privately, but since many seem to be commenting on this portion of your defence:

This would be a GCCP - Governance Configuration Change Proposal introduced in Gov. V3. These are specific proposals to make changes / improvements to governance

[grave onyx]

Hey @stiff swan thanks for your feedback and taking the time to bring this up!

We are doing our jobs and both of us are constantly making changes behind the scenes to improve governance. We also represent other parts of the community - We were also elected by others in the community, similar to F4E.

One of those matters are bringing forward VoNCs (which any member in the community can initiate)

Council has access to everything behind the scenes and a full picture of how one is performing or in this case = NOT PERFORMING.

To you point: we took some time above the 10 to 15 hours set as a minimum requirement to bring this forward.

Just to make this clear for everyone, we are working in the good faith AND for what is best the DAO. I personally like @near fjord and respect the value he brings to Illuvium as a whole. However, he does not and has not brought value to the governance side of the DAO.

If the Community is okay with 1 ICC member not participating in meetings, conversations with fellow council members, improving any processes or representing their constituents, then what happens when ALL members of Council do the same?

The answer is: the council does not work together, we never talk and community opinions & feedback are never represented.

THIS IS AN EXTREME CASE/ perspective which would be detrimental to the DAO, but I will leave that for your consideration. This is brought up to really highlight how this situation is not acceptable - as many others have brought up

[stiff swan]

I hope you guys can figure it out. I have faith in you @native sandal and @near fjord can work things out. Go illuvium.

[granite cosmos]

Councils are utter nonsense. Everything of relevance should happen in public discussions and should be up for voting by everyone. But this is a separate discussion. There are bigger projects with less governance overhead.

[grave onyx]

I will say - regardless of the outcome, changes will need to take place for the betterment of the DAO

My proposal would be to sit down at the table with all members of ICC & IMC - with the GCM ( @velvet kraken ) , to assess and go over all points brought forward - clearly expectations need to be better defined and outlined for all elected members

[young verge]

Kicking fight4eth off the council with a VoNC is not the right way to got about this. You try talk it out first, see if there are solutions to these issues and if not fight4eth steps down. He's given a lot to this community and should be treated with respect

[grave onyx]

This has been a discussion brought up many times - but yes this would be a seperate discussion that has been had many times in the course of Illuviums history

Feel free to share in #1020759212172775464 or #1059914967161241640 and the convo can continue there

[wheat basalt]

It says that "their attendance and voting statistics (as % participation) shall be published by the DAO" but I didn't find where it was published.

Having a place where it's clear what are the requirements for Council should be almost a must. That way it should be much more clear what F4E done or didn't do. Currently we are just guessing what IIPs we should read and we don't know anything.

Also, as far as I can read, if it matters, F4E was pretty honest in his nominations and he didn't promise anything he isn't doing.

[wheat basalt]

Maybe even requirements or, now I'm being crazy here, better election process.

I also don't understand why people are offended by the VONC. Why is it bad to think someone is not doing their job and should be doing better.

VONC is not kicking someone out. It's a long process that never went through and probably never will as we don't have enough active community for 50 upvotes on anything + if F4E has so much support he should easily stay on Council after snapshot voting.

[grave onyx]

Hi Ghamater - the VoNC is one of many levers that can be pulled in Governance

Respect/Alternate Pathways are all perspective based. You are insinuating that this is "disrespectful" to Fight4Eth and this was not the intent. All council members work with the best interests of the DAO and always what they believe to be good faith (and what is globally perceived as good faith)

This is a sensitive subject and was not easy for me personally to bring this forward on someone that i reapect in the community.

Every topic will have 2 ends of the extreme and some on the fence in the middle... this does not discount either parties opinions on a specific subject and healthy debating and conversing is important to that.

On the other side of the coin, for this specific case, it could be perceived as "disrespectful" to everyone part of the DAO that this was not brought forward and that COUNCIL allowed this kind of behavior. It was brought up by many in the community in the past that Council has been "laxed" towards each other and this epoch I personally have taken a more critical role in assessing other's contribution and participation (my own as well!)

Again:

EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION = I encourage it! For or against, this is important to share

This vote requires 50 upvotes for it to go to VILV voting - this literally gives the power back to the ENTIRE DAO (everyone who holds ILV) - that is the vote that really matters. This is open discussion for everyone to get their comments addressed and answers to any questions.

(Sorry for any typos - fat fingers on my phone while I am at work for my day job)

[hollow blaze]

I hope to see this question answered. I really am deeply concerned by the notion that a council member would flat out refuse to join meetings with the rest of the council. And this is coming from someone that honestly does like F4E as a person and believes he's a net positive to the community's interests.

[grave onyx]

Promoting Illuvium and Representing the best interested for the DAO are two drastically different topics

I would also like you to watch your language and namecalling in here, let's try to keep this sensitive subject as professional as possible

[urban parcel]

you can find attendance in the meeting notes and voting on snapshot.
But yes, there is no place with a list summarizing that.

[wheat basalt]

I was just noticing that in the IIP it says it will be provided while it wasn't.

[urban parcel]

well since both is public, it actually is provided.

[grave onyx]

ALSO - I have a tool build pending ICC and IMC approval for it to be added to a community facing Google folder for all to see

I am on mobile let me get it now 😀

This tracker anyone can prepare, so I took it on myself to build it and update it with ANY public information

This includes "public meeting notes", "snapshot voting history" and "posted rationales"

** THE INFORMATION IS NOT FULLY UPDATED**

• It is missing some information from the last 2 weeks for Voting / Rationale
• it only shows the public meeting attendance for the month of September. Note: Althought it shows that you signed into the meeting, it does not indicate your level of participation during said meetings

#📯〕council-chambers message

(LINK TO PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES - which indicates attendance)

[raw sky]

It seems to me this could have been resolved by having a simple meeting with the person and given them a warning that they are not pulling their weight. Have a documented council and if the behavior persisted afterwards by all means proceed. Council members time is being wasted on trying to remove another versus trying to improve the performance of said member.

[grave onyx]

Early October Meeting ✅️

[grave onyx]

I can agree and disagree to your point - we are all in this together. A team of 5 brought together by community voting to represent the DAO

We are not here to create performance improvement plans (PIPs) for other Council Members. At a certain point, Accountability on your own actions come into play and you need to self-motivate to do better

ICC is open to everyone to represent the community how you see fit, bring forth new initiatives and volunteer to assist on tasks others are currently working on.

An old saying comes to mind: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"

[raw sky]

I do see your point of view and understand how you all on council are basically your own manager. I feel time would be better spent encouraging him to provide more input.

[grave onyx]

@mossy owl is very efficient in leading the meetings (as Garf previously pointed out)

Caveman would do his best to ensure everyone can comment and share their opinions on the topics during meetings for more input and discussion = when F4E was called upon, minimal or no response, conversation continues. No additional topics were brought forward by him during meetings where he could lead the conversation either.

As for our private channels, anyone can comment and jump in at any point - there are no rules in those channels and it is always open to anyone to share opinions on a subject or start a new conversation. This is where the number of messages in those channels are concerning as pointed out by others earlier in this discussion

For reference, I have sent 25% (400+ messages) of all messages there - this is not a flex and we all have messages that do not add value (so those can be ignored from each of us), but just to give you some more context on how others in ICC are working.

[mellow nacelle]

I had a chance to speak to F4ETH and get feedback from several others as well to try to bring a balanced feedback. Full transparency that I haven't worked directly with F4E this epoch so this is all from secondhand observation.
*I firmly believe that council members contribute in very different ways. Some folks might be very active making content, others might be building products to support the DAO, others highly engaged with the community, others bringing particular knowledge or skillsets, etc. There's no right way to be a council member and the community clearly elects individuals with that in mind.
*All council members have a set of baseline requirements (voting on proposals, joining meetings, evaluating proposals, researching and developing opinions/thesis on issues facing the DAO, communicating within council and the community, etc.). Everyone will be better at various elements here too but there's a reasonable baseline.

In this particular case, I see several items that are concerning and one that is a hard line for me:

1. Part of working as an effective council member is being part of the group and contributing where you have specific strengths. I have no problem with F4E's primary contribution being active on Twitter and not as much in Discord or YouTube. This is high value. However, the ICC specifically does have reasonable expectations to be involved in Discord.
2. Attendance is a tricky one given how short this epoch has been. We should be careful penalizing/VONC someone for missing meetings beyond what they signed up for. If the plan was once every week or 2 but meetings are twice weekly that's honestly a lot. I would be hesitant to VONC someone because they were only able to attend recurring meetings once per week knowing how difficult it is to coordinate time zones. As-needed, one-off meetings for critical topics are always reasonable to ask council members to attend
   **My primary concern is that if F4E is unable or unwilling to join council meetings live going forward, there is no way for him to be an effective council member. Each council must be a group that is able to work effectively. I've shared this with him and asked him to consider that position. If this is something he and the ICC can't work out then I would suggest he should step down.

[solid mantle]

Just my .02 on meeting times since it seems tough for F4E on lunch break. One specific time does not need to be set for the entire epoch.
Last epoch @mild cave was waking up around 5am to attend and about half way through we adjusted the time so it worked better for him and let some other make less than ideal accommodations. Consider picking a new time every couple of months to meet.

[velvet kraken]

Do we have stats on missed meetings for IMC?

Never mind not the thread for that

[granite cosmos]

Why are there frequent meetings in the first place ?

Here, we explore each of Musk's six rules for productivity and discuss their implications for businesses aiming to streamline operations.
Avoid Large Meetings. ...
Leave a Meeting if You're Not Contributing. ...
Forget the Chain of Command. ...
Be Clear, Not Clever. ...
Ditch Frequent Meetings. ...
Use Common Sense.

[grave onyx]

ICC is extremely open to move meeting times around and have done that several times = I am also East Coast time so it's a bit more inconvenient for me and I have made it work

We all agreed before moving forward and anyone is open to speak up if the time doesn't work = F4E agreed to the meeting times and we also accommodate weekdays that worked better for him and horrible for me (Mondays) - but as a group we come together and work together.

However, its the lack of contribution during the meetings that he has attended to date that is the most concerning part

TL:DR:

There is a major difference between signing into a meeting & contributing in that meeting

[granite cosmos]

What topics do you discuss that could not be discussed in email etc. ?

[grave onyx]

You have access to the document.
It will be shared publically soon - my estimation is in November - at least this is when I personally would like it shared - but requires ICC & IMC approval to be shared (and someone to audit the information for accuracy!)*

But yes, let's please keep this as ICC related and more specifically F4E

[grave onyx]

They are discussions around topics occurring in the community and also around specific matters. This past week we had Perry (Illuvium) attend our meeting and it that is a critical moment to get information & discussions around some burning topics

Again = I am not arguing here that voice/video meetings are better than text based communication. There are arguments on both sides as you pointed out here:
#1300886387188568115 message

However, i reiterate the point that you need to actually participate in those written discussions if that is the route selected - this has not happened to this point either.

We converse throughout the week in our Council channels on topics and even there comments/opinions are not shared

All ICC meeting notes (thinned down and confidential information removed) are located here:

#📯〕council-chambers message

There is a delay for the meeting minutes from October which we are planning to have them added by the end of this week 👍

[near fjord]

I wrote that statement to be upfront with the community about my approach to my council role, so everyone can make an informed decision when voting. If this approach doesn’t align with community expectations and leads to my removal, I can accept that, but I’ll explain why I believe this is the best path for me.

With newborn twins, a set schedule is nearly impossible. During some meetings, I need to attend to one of the babies while my wife attends to the other, leading to distractions or limited contributions. Listening to meeting recordings when I have undistracted time to give my full attention seems like the most effective way forward.

When I asked for the community's support to join the council, I was clear about how I wanted to contribute: 'I will continue doing what I’ve been doing for the past three years: making myself useful by answering questions from members in our Discord and sharing the Illuvium story on Twitter. I understand the importance of listening to the community and sharing their thoughts so we can all work together to make Illuvium the best video game the world has ever seen.'

I never claimed expertise in creating excel documents or high-level fuel economy strategies. I trust that the Illuvium team and IMC are better equipped to handle those areas.

During my time on the council, we’ve discussed topics like:

IZ updates and fuel supply issues
Revenue forecasting
Cosmetic purchases with fuel
Economic model changes
Fuel market manipulation
Tutorial removal and game introduction
Blueprint process changes
While it’s valuable to stay informed on these subjects, they don’t relate to the community engagement platform I campaigned on. That’s why I question what actionable role I could play in these areas, which I feel are better suited for the IMC to discuss with the team. As @wheat basalt noted, I was transparent about my goals as a council member. I didn’t expect to be tackling complex issues like fuel market manipulation or adding in-depth insights on topics beyond my platform.

If these skills are now requirements for the Community Council, then Ricky and Garf are right—I may not be qualified for this position.

I received the most votes of all, which I see as a clear indication that my contributions are valued by the community. I believe this support suggests that my approach and impact are resonating with members, in ways that benefit both the DAO and the community as a whole.

[near fjord]

"Regarding the missed meeting due to his work. I want to say that we would be lenient with people missing meetings if they give a proper explanation and provide value in other areas to compensate. As long as members strive to bring value to the DAO and give their best effort, I believe it’s acceptable for us to be engaged in different ways. However, as I mentioned, I haven’t seen any area where he has demonstrated much more than the minimum required effort."

Shown are my X analytics over the past four weeks which show my commitment to engaging with our community and the broader Web3 audience via X, just as I outlined in my Community Council campaign. I believe I’m delivering on what I promised voters.

You may feel this approach isn’t enough, but I’ve been straightforward about how I intended to make an impact. While not all of these new followers are genuine accounts, a good portion are, and they could eventually become new investors or Illuvium players. This is how I believe I can make an impact for the DAO. I wish this VoNC never happened and we could have all talked about this internally.

[grave onyx]

I can respect that this is why you might have been elected due to your reach and supporting the project - as i mentioned several times and even to you privately, I can appreciate what you do for the Illuvium ecosystem, but the focus here should be around Governance and doing what is best for the DAO in terms of Governance matters. To state publically: i have nothing against you F4E the person, or the Community hypeman/megaphone sharing/retweeting.
I have major concerns with F4E the councilman

I am curious to know, What changes have you implemented over the past 2 months compared to prior to being elected? In relation to your X posts, outreach and content?

You have obligations to participate in Council meetings and bringing opinions and community feedback/sentiment to the Council to ensure they are represented and that you share their respective viewpoints. ICC is a funnel bringing everything from the community forward and we are a pivotal point to get things implemented and proposals prepared and pushed through governance.

In the past 2 months, you have shared close to nothing of substance from "X" and your following in relation to new topics or opinions on existing topics occurring in the ecosystem.

This is even more apparent on MAJOR topics being voted on. Your rationales are simplified and do not elaborate on any additional feedback you might have received privately or via X/Twitter

Why have you not presented any of this to Council or elaborated on anyghing further during our meetings? Or via text in our private Council channels?

TL:DR:
You want a seat at Council's table, you need to be doing more than what you were doing when you were not on Council - you have access to more information than a regular community member and need to leverage your experience & expertise for the betterment of the DAO

[winter yarrow]

This is the most pathetic, time wasting sad shit I've ever seen out of this IP. I can't even bother reading past the first 20% of this discord thread (I did read the entire document) because it's so SOY. This franchise has wasted more money than any brand I've ever seen, and you want to target a guy who just had twins? If you guys have this much free time to pour into removing someone from your wack ass council then I think Illuvium should save itself the money and disban it completely. I've always thought the council was such a stupid idea, it's done a piss poor job and all that extra money should have been poured into THE GAME, not this stupid make believe political structure that does NOTHING but extract from our development funding. All the power should go to KIERAN and his top game devs. Fight4ETH has always been extremely helpful to me btw. This is the most blown up dumb shit and it absolutely RUINS your guys reputation.

I think it'd be a very appropriate counter proposal for @near fjord to creat an IIP to disban the council and surrender power to Kieran. @native sandal loves helping put final touches on it too I'm sure he'd love to help.

[acoustic tusk]

You can dislike DAO's all your want, but disbanding the DAO has implications you pretty clearly haven't considered. Doing so would have some pretty severe negative impacts on the project.

Is it the most efficient organizational structure? No it's not.

But pushing back against the idea that council should be accountable for their actions is kind of baffling to me. In the past we've heard things like "Council just does whatever they want with no repercussions if they don't do anything.". Now, the ICC has brought forward a VONC based on concerns they have to hold a member accountable.

The one thing that's certain is that you can't have it both ways. You can't have accountability but also attack people and call them SOY for trying to hold someone accountable.

You can't have a DAO and the benefits that come from being a DAO and also be a centralized organization.

You can and should disagree with this VONC if you think it's unwarranted. That's kind of the point of it.

[winter yarrow]

Good games dont have Daos, only loser ass games that fail

[hollow blaze]

The attitude is frankly uncalled for

[near fjord]

"I’m curious to understand, what specific changes have you implemented over the past two months compared to before being elected, especially regarding your X posts, outreach, and content?"

I made a point to attend each council meeting, only missing one before this VoNC. I also spoke at the town hall to outline my plans and how I aim to contribute to the council. I reviewed every document provided, even though I didn’t suggest changes, yall are pretty good at writing documents. I took time to read all feedback on proposals I voted on, cast each vote promptly, and shared my rationale. In hindsight, I realize I underestimated the importance of my commentary, so I kept it brief, even attempting humor in my Fuel Bonus rationale. This might have seemed superficial, which I regret and won’t repeat, as I acknowledged in my initial defense.

"You have obligations to participate in Council meetings and bring opinions and community feedback to ensure they are represented and that you share their respective viewpoints. ICC is a funnel, bringing everything from the community forward; we are a pivotal point for implementing ideas and pushing proposals through governance."

I attended the meetings, where I raised the 3-month airdrop season suggestion from a community member and even escalated it as I stated in my original defense. I completely agree with your second sentence and admit I was somewhat unprepared for the role. A major event in my life recently took more of my free time than I anticipated.

This will be my final message regarding my VoNC defense, as my wife is understandably upset with the time I've spent addressing this today. However, I’d like to end with a question for you and Garf:

Do you feel this VoNC was the best way to address your concerns about my perceived shortcomings?

Some members agree with me that we could have discussed these issues more privately before it reached this point.

I love Illuvium and would never do anything to hurt the DAO. If anyone reads this and the previous messages and decides I’m not fit for this role, so be it. Either way, you’ll still find me on X and in Discord, spreading the good word of Illuvium! 😊

[winter yarrow]

how much $ is spent on this dao monthly again?

is there a single good game in existence with a dao?

[urban parcel]

lets try to stay constructive in this thread

[native sandal]

While i doubt that it will gain a ton of traction, I would be open to participate in writing an IIP if it did. I don't think the issue here is that the council on its own is a waste of time and money. I think that the role, the responsibilities and accountability need work both internally and towards the public.

During epoch 8, we made a start at that "council handbook", but it was brushed aside in epoch 9. This caused the nominees for the current epoch to enter a nomination thinking they understood what the role was only to run into a wall of high level decision making. I moved back in with the attitude that we had during epoch 8 which does give ICC a lot more responsibilities. Back then, we overruled the Marketing subcouncil and pushed Illuvitars wave 2 post-haste. We were the only council that created a document outlining their function and role. We didn't share that publicly because it wasn't ready and it was decided that it should be read when "taking up office" instead.

Anyways, it does feel off topic. Whether we should disband the DAO or not should be a topic in a new thread 👍

[winter yarrow]

wow a manual warning after being warned and thumbs upping...good god you guys are something else

very funny and sad

this is why people go to twitter and your shit doesnt stay contained in discord

the censorship is real in here

[grave onyx]

The entire ICC spoke to you about this during our meeting at the beginning of October = could things have been clearer, perhaps. However it was noted expectations were not being met

No changes were made, no improvements in place, we are all accountable for our actions or lack there of. We do not need to constantly be pushing each other to work more = this is inherent with the role.

I can understand your personal life can be taxing and if you cannot dedicate the time required, the option of you stepping down from this role was presented to you

This VoNC was the last step to bring it to the community for voting and then ILV voting if the 50 upvotes are obtained.

This is being left in the hands of voters at this point. We did what was best for the DAO. Any community member could have brought this forward, which would have looked worse of the ICC for not doing first

To reiterate this because many commenting are seeing this as a "personal attack" on you = I have nothing against you as a person. This is business and what I believe is the best course of action for the DAO

[near fjord]

Ok one more thing , I hope me Ricky and Garf can work out our differences and if my window of free time correlates with our meeting times I will be there 👍

[distant spade]

Are you actually posting 45k impression on a 4 week scale as a relevant metric?

I don´t try to be mean or offensive, but cmon man that in marketing value is close to 0 on X.

[urban parcel]

Casting a Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) at this early phase of the epoch demonstrates courage, engagement, and a genuine desire to elevate the council to a level the DAO deserves, especially during these critical times.

The Community council consists of five dedicated community members who work collaboratively to gather and analyze community sentiment, ensuring that everyone is heard. They strive to implement changes in development and governance based on this feedback, which cannot be done efficiently if even one member is absent from meetings. Fight4ETH’s opinions are valuable; they are part of what earned him a seat on the council, ensuring that his voters are represented in discussions and decisions. According to the VoNC that did not happen.

Being active on Discord, where governance discussions take place, and attending meetings where sentiment/issues are addressed is really just the bare minimum expected of a community council member, as outlined in the governance IIPs. According to the VoNC, those requirements were not met.

Furthermore, as an investor and player, I would like to see more than just the bare minimum, especially during this critical phase for the IP.

While I understand that he has personal obligations that can make it challenging to maintain a fixed schedule for meetings, this is, as Blickter pointed out, not a problem for the DAO. Quite frankly, I find it puzzling that someone with such a challenging private life would apply for such a time-intensive role, where also flexibility is absolutely necessary since you are working with people all around the globe.

Also, let’s keep in mind that this epoch could have been much more demanding if we had launched with 10,000, 20,000, or more active players. There could be significantly more engagement with proposals and discussions if more community members were actively participating, which would need to be divided among all council members, adding even more workload to each individual. I hope everyone sitting in council is aware of that and considered it when applying for such a job.

On a side note, I don’t believe this VoNC stems from personal reasons but rather represents a difficult business decision, with the council utilizing the tools available for this situation. I appreciate the attention Fight4ETH brings to Illuvium through his posts on X and keeping the community updated. At least, I certainly do! 🙂

[near fjord]

Yearly analytics

[distant spade]

Sure, that´s still pretty much nothing.

Not saying it isn´t good for Illuvium overall prob, but it isn´t to any relevant extent.

I respect you for campaigning on this and not making up stuff or the making the "I changed a light bulb" = "Single-handedly managed the successful upgrade and deployment of new environmental illumination system with zero cost overruns and zero safety incidents" thing on your resume compared to many others.

But at least from the content creation/esport kinda world I come from, where we got payed for metrics, these numbers were worth legit nothing.
Very good to have community members, but not something worth $.

[winter yarrow]

Many people feel the same way about the DAO as a whole. Any good game will bring content creators, that shouldnt be on the DAOs shoulders. Personally, I see no value in the DAO and think the money is better spent on more devs.

Evidenced by our lack of revenue and player base

[distant spade]

It won´t be news, that I don´t think highly of electing people in a popularity contest^^

But just being like let´s stop being a DAO would bring unwanted consequences.

Having more merit or needed requirements in place, could help there, but I don´t think that´s the topic in this thread.

[winter yarrow]

Yes, if you stopped the DAO without inacting countermeasures for balance then youd be right, thats not what id ever advocate for

[urban parcel]

let's try to stay on topic

[winter yarrow]

Would you prefer I make my own IPP submission? I wouldnt mind continuing the conversation there if you dont think it's relevant here.

[urban parcel]

i would recoomend revive an old thread or create a new thread about this topic in #1020759212172775464
You for sure can create a Proposal directly, but given the topic i highly recommend brainstorming and gathering sentiment first for the proposal standing a chance. to be upvoted in the given timelimit.

[uncut thicket]

I find the targeted Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) against Fight4ETH (F4E) super upsetting and divisive for the entire ILV community—the opposite of what I thought the Illuvium Community Council (ICC) was established for.

Firstly, F4E was elected by the majority of his ILV staking peers in the DAO just a couple of months ago. Yet, due to him missing a single meeting—caused by time zone differences and other work commitments—another ICC member has lodged a VoNC against him. He avoided attending a second meeting because the VoNC against him was being discussed. To be honest, I probably wouldn't want to attend that meeting either, as it might not be the most constructive environment within the ICC.

I question whether this VoNC is truly warranted. I assumed that a VoNC, especially this soon in the epoch, would be reserved for severe misconduct, fraud, or negligence—not for missing a meeting or perceived lack of engagement.

Moreover, I wonder if Kieran or anyone else with a newborn has ever had to skip a meeting, cut a phone call short, or prioritize family over other commitments. Now, multiply that by two, as F4E recently had twins—congratulations to him! Life happens, and personal responsibilities sometimes must come first.

Despite not being as visible through certain media channels as some upvoters expect, F4E has been promoting Illuvium and engaging with the community on Twitter/X for years—for free. He has always been approachable to me, willing to discuss all things Illuvium and represent his voters' and community's views, which is what I thought the role of an ICC member was. He votes based on what the community prefers, especially when he's not an expert on a particular topic, which demonstrates great common sense and maturity.

This should not be a contest of who currently has the most engagement on social media—that is irrelevant. F4E was elected by the DAO, likely for reasons beyond being a prominent influencer.

I also wonder how many ICC members would remain if no ILV incentives were provided moving forward. If ICC members can transfer their ILV rewards back to the DAO treasury, that would be a great sign of confidence to the DAO.

Given that this VoNC was raised by other ICC members regarding an existing ICC member, I can't help but question if ulterior motives are at play here. Perhaps a VoNC should be considered to disband the entire ICC and re-run the election process to keep everything fair and impartial.

In summary, I believe the VoNC against F4E is unwarranted and divisive. It undermines the unity of the ILV community and detracts from the real purpose of the ICC.

PS: I certainly hope the thumbs downs votes are factored into the 50 Thumbs up equation!

[native sandal]

I'm jumping on one point in particular because it is a slippery slope to look for ulterior motives "can we trust these people" is not the right question imo. I'm giving that remark a thumbsdown because I/We have been fully transparent in how I voted and why. We have also shown exactly why we started the VoNC.

Previous criticism around governance has been that the council does not provide enough value. Or that the council makes decisions without listening to the community. Or "everything happens internally and we don't know what is going on."

This VoNC gives insight into exactly what has been happening behind the scenes. Now, you argue that the ICC members should not hold one another accountable since you can't trust the process. You even want to do a re vote because things may have been unfair. But then who will hold ICC accountable if this is the outcome for any time we try to hold one another accountable? The community doesn't know what happens and now the council can't hold one another accountable due to probable backlash? So we just vote on people, you don't know what they do, but you just trust them to do what's best and even if they sit back and do nothing, you are fine with it. You just don't want to see it happen because it may be due to an ulterior motive.

The fact that we openly share our rationales, share the evidence that our decision was based on and we didn't just "oust" Fight4Eth from the council internally should be all the information you need. We could have had week long discussions with him and tried convincing him that he was not providing value and to resign. But that's just behind the scenes manipulation. We judged across the previous 2 months what his participation has been. We told him a month ago that it was not enough in our eyes. Last week we told him that we were drafting a Vonc. He said that he didn't want to participate in meetings going forward, even when we told him that the VoNC would not be brought up during the meetings. Lastly we made our thoughts public through the VoNC.

If the community disagrees with our decision, then this is the place to make it known. So thank you for doing that. But there is no "secret" ulterior motive to be found. Me personally, I just want people to do their job. If they don't, then I'll tell them. Now it is up to the person I criticize to reflect and maybe even ask: "What do you think I should do because I think I do my job." I may have been insufficient in my explanation. But if they don't, then the next step for me is to criticize it publicly through official channels just like now. To me this is the most transparent way I can do things here. If you think that is due to an ulterior motive, then i don't know what to tell you. I just want the project to succeed. I've been here 3+ years now and I just want it to do well. The ICC is an integral part of that, and it should run well. If one person does not provide enough perceived value, then we should look to see whether they should be replaced for the good of the DAO.

That's all that is happening here. Should we do this after 2 months, 5 months or after the entire epoch? That is open for another debate. But i think we should be the ones to issue a VoNC if someone underperforms.

[winter yarrow]

For a little context, can you tell us what you guys have done in the past 2 months so we can see where the lack of performance is? Not everyone needs to write lengthy responses to back up why they agree on something, if they read it and decide to trust in the idea, then a yes is a yes and they were elected to vote on whats best for the IP, which is seems like he voted with you guys...if he was disagreeing and just writing "no i dont approve" thats a different story. Even our own elected politicians do it this way.

[grave onyx]

Of course! As I said - every action I have taken to this point is with what i believe the best thing/interest is for the DAO

Some clearly disagree with the steps I have taken (or additional steps i did not take) or pesenting this VoNC at all.

I am okay with every community member's opinion and I personally hold no animosity towards anyone (including You!). I Respect everyone's point of view and am happy to see people coming forward and Voting. Many people have messaged me privately with questions and do not want to touch this or get involved = I can respect that as well.

If this VoNC fails, if the ICC remains as is, we will figure out a path forward that will work for all parties (ICC). This at its core is what will be best for the DAO moving forward 🤝 I am confident in all people involved we will be able to move past this (my personal opinion)

[winter yarrow]

When someone submits a VoNC, if it doesn't pass the submitter should be removed. These votes shouldnt be used so lightly. The actions should be clear and egregious. Your words are one thing Ricky and Garf, but your actions speak louder. You've made this understandably awkward for him and I think most people would be incredibly uncomfortable continuing to work by your side after this attempt.

[native sandal]

I gave my reasoning on why he was underperforming as the eigth message in this channel.
#1300886387188568115 message

What we have been working on and been discussing can be read in the meeting notes, topics were mentioned in this channel and the IIP's that were passed have been intensively scrutinized internally.

The key aspect here is that community perspectives were integrated into decision-making as per our role as ICC. Which we did mostly by bringing those up during the meetings but also in the various discussion channels.

[winter yarrow]

To me this whole thing smells, based on some of the commentary above it seems there was regret that blickster wasnt on the ICC. Looks like you guys picked what you thought was an easy target, found some non serious aspects of how F4E was operating, and went for a replacement. That's just how it looks, there's motive behind everything, I guarantee you people have missed meetings before and had short approval responses.

[urban parcel]

if the vonc would be approved, next in line would be JP not blickter

[native sandal]

Well the next ICC member who would be up is Missionpoole according to the current governance processes, who I VoNC'd last epoch when i wasn't on council myself. You can find the vonc there as well 🤷‍♂️ fully transparent.

He is one of the founders of Arcade. Not the easiest target. Honestly, I just vonc whoever I think underperforms. I do my due diligence as good as I can, and then take action.

Maybe, as you say, Voncs should not be used so lightly. Which is valid feedback, and something I will mull over going forward. From my perspective it was the step i thought we should take however.

[rich blade]

People have said here that he’s doing the minimum. That’s just another way of saying he’s doing the job. There’s no such thing as the minimum. You’re doing the job or you’re not. So by their admission, he’s doing the job. They either have a problem with the job definition or are pissed off that they think they’re working harder and it isn’t fair. Doing the job isn’t underperformance. Anything above that is subjective and has no place in something like this.

[grave onyx]

Just so you are aware, this was not an easy decision for me to make, but as I have made abundantly clear, this is what I believe is best for the DAO (25 people agree)

We have 26 👍 and 21 👎 presently, indicating this is a difficult decision and the community is torn. Many have stated they will not vote and I respect that.

I do not take a VoNC lightly and there are no ulterior motives. What I want is clear as it always has been: What is best for the DAO.

Reminder: 50 upvotes gets it to vILV voting by everyone who holds ILV, they are the ultimate decision makers, not us.

You as a community member and holder of ILV have a right to initiate a VoNC as you see fit - reach out to anyone on ICC or IMC or even directly to Rich (GCM) if you need assistance

Lastly, All I would say is that VoNCs can be submitted anonymously to protect the identity of who brings it forward.

**We CHOSE to have our names on it because we have nothing to hide here **

[winter yarrow]

I still dont see the comparitive context. Are you assuming he wasn't intensely scrutinizing proposals before voting, simply because he used fewer words than others? What have you guys accomplished in the past 2 months, and did he hinder any of it? Did he cause any damage? Did he vote with what the community wanted?

This proposal lacks details necessary to support your case, too many questions, the entire thing needs rewritten.

It also lacks information about who would be next in line and if they're ready to fill the gap. Things may have changed regarding availability, and continuance of structure should be something you'd think that would be included.

[uncut thicket]

Given the recent discussions and developments on this topic, I'm wondering if @grave onyx and @native sandal might reconsider their recent VoNC submission against F4E and, with hindsight in mind, approach the situation differently?

[winter yarrow]

That'd be the smartest move, it's clearly not going to pass, all this is doing is unnecessary damage.

[grave onyx]

Short Answer: Unfortunately, NO

Fair warning was provided and the merrit still remains, as 27 people agree.

The intent was not to divide the community and many have showed up in support (and opposition)

We will let this continue for the 5 days and if 50 upvotes are obtained, go to ILV holder voting. If not obtained, then the VoNC failed to get community support and nothing happens.

[native sandal]

This is my personal opinion Yes he did bring up one point in the last two months. So it is a slight exaggeration but it's to allow you to understand where I'm coming from and why the vonc started from my perspective.

He did not hinder any proposal. He did not cause any damage. He did not participate actively during meetings, only when Caveman would ask him to participate and finally he did not participate in most any discussions (36/1000+ messages).

It's like he wasn't on council at all from my point of view. This is why, for the good of the DAO i hoped to introduce someone, anyone who would do the job of ICC and represent the community since he obviously didn't try to do that. Everyone in this thread falls over that one missed meeting. But back then we said: "Np, it's the first meeting, things like this happen. don't mention it.". Instead, it's the other meetings that caused me to reconsider him for ICC. He just didn't add value. He did nothing 🤷‍♂️ This is why he scores low on all points in the peerfeedback. Because there is nothing to score. This is why I said in my voting rationale; I could have given him 3 points on everything, but that would paint a wrong picture as well.

What did we do? Well we made sure we had an ICC at all. We pushed 6 proposals which is pretty nice for our first two months if I do say so myself!

[grave onyx]

Similar question could be posed to @near fjord = with hindsight in mind, would he have done anything differently? (Update: this epoch or since early October)

Which has been asked and answered many times in his defence and throughout their thread

[winter yarrow]

How many of those proposals did he vote on?

The end game here, is that we elect representatives to vote for the will of it's people. Did he do that? I'd rather have that, then have a greedy member who provided a ton of feedback but voted against what people wanted.

[native sandal]

He voted on all of them he even gave a very short rationale. Now, if that is what you are looking for, then he is the right man for the job for sure! If so, nevermind all of this. I must have looked to improve something that didn't need improving. Which may just be my bad. I just wanted to bring to light how the council was functioning. If you are totally OK with those workings, then that's fine by me.
I personally felt a bit conflicted. because on one hand i wanted to give it my all and make sure things worked out, on the other hand i see just how little you can do and yet gain community support.
Without clear roles being provided for the council, this would become an uphill battle, because you are not encouraging people to do more than what they are asked to do.

[winter yarrow]

I said this once already tonight, I'll say it again, actions speak louder than words. Should we start hitting people with VoNC's when they vote against our will?

[uncut thicket]

Always best to focus on your own work/patch of grass than worry about others... best not to assume that F4E wasn`t doing his role/job, sounds like he considered and voted on all proposals to me....

[grave onyx]

If you feel it warrants one- you have every right to. However, Voting against what you believe but what is globally best for the DAO would not warrant a VoNC

Again, council represents the community, but we also have access to more information that is confidential. In rare cases, sometimes we need to vote against community sentiment for what is best for the DAO

Anyways, we have made it clear where we stand, you have made it clear, we are going around in circles.

You believe he is doing his job, we and* 25 other people do not. Agree to disagree on it.

[uncut thicket]

For Example: One developer could be working on a really complex mathematical bug that took over a week to fix, while other developers are smashing out lots of visible basic features, and states the other developer on the complex bug is doing no/less work compared to them, yet both developers added their code and doing their job/role. I didn't know being on the ICC was to compete your perceived work ethic against other members 😦

[winter yarrow]

So the DAO takes priority over the community? Or am I reading that wrong? So the community could never get rid of the DAO, the DAO would have to dissolve themselves?

[native sandal]

Thought experiment: If the community now asks the DAO to give everyone 100$ and completely empty the treasury, then the Council would likely vote no. because it is not in the best interest of the DAO.
But again. Off topic.

[winter yarrow]

But what if we really want it?

lol jk. I see your point.

[smoky spade]

this is an example of why we cannot afford this.... I promise you we will overcome this rough spot!!!

[grave onyx]

This is not relevent to the topic at hand - I get your point but let's not deviate too widely please

Let's show this thread the respect it deserves. At the core, this is about Fight4Eth and the community can share their opinions and vote what they believe is best for the DAO 🗳️

[winter yarrow]

Even if you win with this proposal (which I highly doubt), you really lose. This is a lose lose situation, the only win here would be to take the post down, and handle it privately, which would show maturity and lack of ego. If you want to divide the community further then go for it, but that will be bad for revenue, which should always be king. This post is bad for the community, and bad for the DAO.

[uncut thicket]

Next week, who is placing bets on who the next ICC member will have a VoNC for making a typo in a IIP or joined a meeting 2 minutes late...the optics on all of this is plain awful

[winter yarrow]

They have higher standards for the DAO then our government has for politicians...it's interesting for sure.

I appreciate your passion and professionalism Garf. I'll end it with that. I believe you that this is coming from a place of love for the community and IP, I just think it was a mistake.

[smoky spade]

I agree with this

[near fjord]

#1300886387188568115 message

[near fjord]

#1300886387188568115 message

[smoky spade]

a very good case has been made by BOTH sides .... After spending all day today reviewing the evidence presented and reading the various points of view. I have conluded that I would DOWN Vote this IF @near fjord Would agree to attending meetings and doing his very best to pick up the participation and to review the expectations. If no attendence to the future meetings, I would up vote this. I think you were directing my attention to a post where you agreed to YES attend ALL future meetings then? A simple yes or no, would determine my vote ..... Alternatively, I think its totally possible that you could hubly step down for a period of time until your children are grown up past the stages of such close care , and where your life is in a situation where you can dedicate a bit more focus on the responsabilities of the council seat you hold. Either way, I support you staying around and participating in our community. Everyone deserves a heads up.... A chance to course correct. It IS a critical situation now for the DAO, yet, you DO deserve you dignified treatment and a chance to make a comprimise and improve. 🦊 I await your reply and then I will vote.

[near fjord]

This is what I said "I hope me Ricky and Garf can work out our differences and if my window of free time correlates with our meeting times I will be there 👍" I would rather under promise than over promise. So the only thing I will promise is if I can't put my full attention to the meeting during the meeting hour I will listen back to it and take notes and have commentary for the council. Also I will be working on a proposal to change the structure of Community Council, I will have open dialogue with the community and council to help provide feedback.

[smoky spade]

🤷‍♂️ 🫣 Okay, just remember, nobody survives x2 VoNC's....

[fallen siren]

VoNC is a mechanism available to community members who feel that a council member has failed in their duties. Ultimately, the decision to remove a council member is determined by the DAO through sentiment voting, requiring 50 upvotes, and a vILV snapshot vote. After reviewing the VoNC allegations against Fight4ETH (F4E) and his defense, I am inclined to vote yes, based on the following considerations.

First, while there is no established burden of proof for VoNC cases, I have based my decision on the preponderance of evidence presented. Although I agree that some individual allegations alone may not suffice to support a VoNC, when taken together, it is difficult to dismiss the overall indication that F4E has not fulfilled his council duties. Feedback was provided to F4E in an informal peer evaluation by the Illuvium Community Council (ICC), demonstrating that the entire ICC, not just Garf and Ricky, sought to give F4E the opportunity to improve before initiating this VoNC.

Prior to this VoNC, I had already observed and even expressed to others my concerns regarding F4E’s rationale in Council Chambers, which I found not only lacking in substance but also disrespectful to the role and to the other council members (ICC and IMC). F4E’s rationales came across as superficial, and his explanation of aiming to be concise seems inadequate. Statements like, “Seems like a good idea,” “Nobody likes Vetemor’s Bonus fuel idea,” and “The community’s strong support for this proposal aligns with my stance, so I approve,” are not concise; they lack depth and fail to provide any meaningful insight from F4E. If all council members justified their votes this way, it would be a disservice to the community.

While it is true that I have not been the most active in Discord compared to some of my IMC colleagues, I acknowledge that for ICC members, community engagement is a significant part of the role, and they are expected to be highly visible and interactive. However, it appears that F4E prioritizes his social media presence over engaging on Discord, where direct interaction with the community is essential to his council duties. His responsibilities as a council member have taken a backseat to other obligations, including his full-time job and family responsibilities. While I understand and respect his priorities, they should not come at the expense of his duties to the DAO, especially as this is a paid position.

Another serious concern arose when F4E, after learning of the VoNC, withdrew from attending meetings and indicated that he would not participate in future meetings. This reflects a clear dereliction of duty; effective council membership requires active participation in discussions. Furthermore, the peer evaluation results underscore this issue. All four remaining ICC members scored F4E a 1 in collaboration, with other scores for governance participation, knowledge and expertise, and proposal evaluation yielding an overall average of 2.0. These scores, provided by those who work most closely with F4E, carry significant weight and further validate the need for the VoNC.

In summary, taking into account the VoNC points raised by Ricky and Garf, my own observations, and the telling results of the ICC’s peer evaluation, it is evident that F4E has not met the standards required for his position. Consequently, I am voting yes on the VoNC.

---

Finally, I want to address any suggestion that this VoNC is a personal matter between F4E, Ricky, or Garf. The four remaining ICC members represent different guilds and affiliations, making collusion unlikely. Furthermore, I know Ricky and Garf as diligent members who hold council standards high. Ricky would not have pursued this VoNC without a strong belief that it was necessary for the DAO. He has meticulously gathered evidence on all of us to ensure accountability and frequently reminds us of our responsibilities. I have worked with Ricky on governance matters and take his concerns seriously. Similarly, I have worked with Garf in the past and, despite our differences, respect his integrity and dedication to council standards.

[near fjord]

I am ranked #47 in Discord I am very active in discord and try and help as many people as I can in here but you wouldn't know that because you are not in here like you said. Garf and Ricky only took the last 45 days or so of data which is when I had my twin babies. If they told the community I was ranked #47 in discord that would be bad for their narrative which is why they left this information out.

[fallen siren]

I am ranked #47 in Discord I am very active in discord and try and help as many people as I can in here but you wouldn't know that because you are not in here like you said.

Im rank 27 🤷‍♂️ Guess Im not here as you said.

[torpid moth]

IMO a lot of community members don’t fully understand what it means to be an ICC member. This likely stems from the fact that much of the council’s work happens behind closed doors, leaving the community with little insight into what’s actually going on and what you guys actually do.

As @wheat basalt has pointed out, this lack of transparency/communication ends up turning the council voting into a mere popularity contest. It’s sad that so many people believe that sharing posts on X is enough qualification for an Illuvium ICC member, but at the same time can't really judge them cause it's hard to know what's happening with council as things stand. I only recently discovered that there are council meeting minutes, and I bet the majority still don't know they even exist.

After all this VoNC drama one thing is clear, the ICC will be torn apart. Ironically, the next candidate in line for council also received a VoNC last epoch.

[fallen siren]

First of all. That fire effect on your profile is straight up 🔥

Now that i got that out of the way. I definitely agree that a lot of both councils' work happens outside the communitys visibility. For ICC, theres multiple conversations with the community in DMs. Helping them out in revising or drafting their feedback to IIPs. Creating the github for voting, and even helping out IMC on some tools for governance.

I completely understand why community can be apprehensive with little visibility on this issue. Tbh, the same goes with me even on the IMC. I see what us IMC members do and have slight visibility behind closed doors with ICC which is restricted to the chats. Im not privy to their meetings outside of what Caveman shares in IMC and whats on their minutes.

That is why I put a lot of weight on the peer evaluation that was conducted on F4E. These 4 people has worked with him throughout the epoch. If the results of the peer evaluation was closer to a 3 or looked to be more split then my position would have been different.

[near fjord]

I mean you are the one that said "while it is true that I have not been the most active in Discord compared to some of my IMC colleges" My point still stands though, Garf or Ricky cherry picked data to make it seem like I am not an active member in Discord.

[grave onyx]

We focused on the relevant information for the VoNC which takes into account all actions and, more importantly, inactions you have taken since becoming an ICC member.

This is as you stated, the data from the last 45 days, which is the time you took office and the participation has been minimal.

Anything other than that could be brought up in your defence, which you had 3 days to prepare per ICCP-15. These 72 hours allow for a well built defence and for you to gather any & all relevant information you deem appropriate/relevant

For the record: this is why we did not include any feedback from your performance on Marketing Sub-Council, or comments shared from people you worked alongside. This could have been shared as relevant information as it set precedent around this VoNC, however, we chose to focus on this Epoch and the past 2 months only.

[near fjord]

And at the end of all this if I get voted out the community gets JP someone who didn't even bother to vote on I think 5 proposal during his time on council, great plan 👍

[native sandal]

If he were to get on and underperform, then he and the community both know that we wont hesitate to issue a vonc. At that time we will give insight into what he has done on council during the epoch as objectively as possible, and then add each member's experience. From there, the community can decide if the vonc has grounds to pass.

Im willing to start with a clean slate on that as should the others. The previous councilmembers shared that his voting and rationales indeed were lacking, but that his other efforts internally were on point. So if he gets on, we'll experience his contributions during the epoch and base our decision on that.

[grave onyx]

I did not see that you voted @austere pond = so be sure to put your 👎 if this is your vote

I respect all opinions and points of view - including those that oppose mine. Just best to keep things in the correct channels 👌 🙌

Here was your initial post that I want others to see:

[polar gust]

I found it hard to decide what to do with this situation. The criteria for missing 3 meetings which was the agreed upon number to miss in order to start a VoNC was not met. Therefore, what was left was subjective on whether F4E was performing as he should be. The role of the community council is to communicate and be available to the community. Number of Discord posts is irrelevant to me as quantity does not equal quality and I do think that other social media platforms count. F4E is much loved on X and does a good job in that community, this is something that has been sorely lacking. ALL social media should be visited by council members, not just Discord. The other role is to help with and vote on proposals. He has been involved with this, even if the other council members do not believe he was strong enough at it. If this were the only issues I would have put a thumb down. I would have felt that asking F4E to do more on explanations etc was warranted but not a VoNC.

However, F4E did not go to a meeting after a VoNC was going to be written. A person can’t stop going to work because their co-workers say negative things about them and expect to keep their job. It was something that the five of them had agreed on - meetings had to be attended. Therefore, it was non-negotiable that he attend meetings. Would it have sucked to be him and go? Yes, but perhaps it also could have been used as a way to get things back on the right track and we may not have been all having this conversation.

Since then he has said that he will attend meetings but only if they are within the window of time he has available. Now, if I am honest, I think a lot of meetings in any business are a waste of time but again, it was something that they agreed to and therefore every effort must be made to attend. I do think that there needs to be good communication taking place between the council members.

I was still thinking about how to vote until I saw this written as part of a post within this thread:
…”A major event in my life recently took more of my free time than I anticipated.
This will be my final message regarding my VoNC defense, as my wife is understandably upset with the time I've spent addressing this today.:...

Council does take a lot of time and I feel that if a spouse is upset because the member needs to take time to explain his side to the community so that he can keep his job then there is a problem. I don’t blame her or him, twins are a ton of work and she needs his help. F4E is already working a full-time job and sometimes there are just not enough hours in the day to do everything. If this were a 4 year term I would say that we should give F4E some leave to get things sorted and then he could return to council but it isn’t. His family will require more of his time for the length of his time on council. I think that due to the change in F4E's life since joining council the best thing to do is to have this VoNC and let stake holders re-vote knowing what his time constraints are and how that will change the way he is able to do the job. If the community still wants F4E in then the rest of the council will have to work around that without complaint.

You are my friend Fight4ETH, we have been in Illuvium for over 3 years together. We talk on Twitter, we have DM’d. I know you love Illuvium and you love the community. The community loves you too. This is not an easy thing to do but the way I vote on anything in Illuvium will always be based on what I think is best for the project, not on my feelings.

[near fjord]

Thank you for taking the time to explain your vote ♥️.

[near fjord]

I will say one thing about Ricky and Garf, almost every meeting they were talking about replacing members of the team or council it was like a witch hunt. First they talked about replacing Rich because he wasn't doing things fast enough for them and then they talked about replacing Caveman as head of Community Council because he missed a meeting because he was stuck in an airport and he also wasn't doing things fast enough for them. This is not a work environment I want to be a part of.

[hollow blaze]

I think the ICC should speak to this because if accurate that's a really toxic and unacceptable environment imo.

[pastel otter]

There are pros and cons to both sides of the arguments being made but ultimately I decline this VONC. Usually I would write out a fairly detailed reasoning, but let's be honest - I am not on council anymore thus I don't have to. Here is a short version of what I think.

• The community frankly expects more from the Community council than is warranted IMO for what they're being paid. Simply READING the Discord in it's entirety on a regular basis takes hours, let alone responding. I myself, while I read the discord while on council I was horrible about actually talking in it. I've always been a fan of the idea that Community council duties could be split in such a way that not everyone has to read the entire discord, let alone X and Youtube comments as well [ Yes F4E I see you advocating on X and Youtube a ton and commend you for your activities outside the discord ].

• I do agree that F4E should be providing more thought out responses to his voting rational. To me part of that is for those who don't want to get into the thick of governance but can read an overview so taking the time to, at the very least, talk about the major pros and cons given by the community is beneficial for the community.

• While I can see the grievances made, I also feel as though more warning and suggestion could have been given to F4E before a VONC was ever put into motion. I don't feel, with the evidence given, that there was enough time to inform F4E of his perceived lacking's and given time to improve on them.

• I am concerned by the comment that F4E would not attend council meetings going forward, and frankly find that an unacceptable response to the situation. This is a job and should be treated with professionalism ON ALL SIDES.

• There needs to be continued conversation between council members, and if something is not working for one - like meeting times then that member needs to speak up and everyone needs to be open to discussing a solution to the problem.

• While I emphasize with the time and energy it takes to deal with one newborn, let alone two , this should have been taken into account when applying for the position. All potential candidates need to be realistic about what kind of time they can actually contribute to the job. Because it is a paid job.

Fuck I still wrote more than I'd have liked

TLDR; previous council members have done worse jobs on council and been given more warning and opportunities to improve than Fight4Eth in this situation [ based on the document provided - sorry i did not read through this entire thread in it's entirety]. Because of this and the arguments provided I decline this VONC on the caveat that he continues to attend Council meetings in person, and work to improve the suggestions made here. Should improvements not be made then given another VONC I would probably vote in favor of it.

[near fjord]

I didn't want to air out dirty laundry but the longer this has gone on the more it is getting under my skin on how Ricky and Garf have handled this whole situation. @lone parcel @mossy owl do y'all want to speak on this?

[mossy owl]

Hey F4E, we were in our weekly IMC update meeting that just wrapped up. After you brought to my attention that they were attempting to replace Rich and me in a private voice call. I reached out to them all individually to get a clear picture of the situation.

To my understanding y'all discussed getting a vice/proxie GMC to take care of situations when Rich is away from office for various reasons. The discussion around me was mainly about if I kept having situations like a delayed flight, then someone may be better to lead the position. Either way if these conversations happened in a meeting and were not posted on public notes this is breaking confidentiality of the meeting.

Regarding your question about whether Ricky and Garf have contributed to a toxic work culture: this was a fair observation, and we brought it up in the internal peer evaluations as well. They are aware of the feedback and are actively working on improving. I've had conversations with them about making positive changes. Although their approach can sometimes come off as abrasive, I'm optimistic that their intentions are in good faith for the DAO.

I would appreciate if all council members stop going back and forth and let the community ask questions. Let them try to get a better understanding of why this is was brought up and better educate themselves on how they want to vote.

[native sandal]

I went into ICC and like I stated in my nomination, wanted to push for a more competitive scene in the council.
I mentioned how this job requires us to hold one another accountable pretty much day one and that I for one would take an active role in criticizing others when I felt needed.

I did, however, go too far in that regard during the first month of the epoch. While figuring out how our roles would be divided, I sometimes got a bit hotheaded due to little things I thought were standard. We all have been on council for at least six months, so I had set my expectations very high going in. I got feedback in the same meeting on October second that I unintentionally created a somewhat toxic atmosphere where people felt uncertain on if they could ask a "dumb" question or not. Since then I have actively worked on that aspect.

[lone parcel]

I agree with what @mossy owl has stated. The toxic work culture is something that I noticed early on. I voiced my concerns about this; they received my feedback well, and since then, I have seen consistent improvement. It is not perfect yet, but I appreciate the effort they have made to better this behavior.

The last thing I will mention on the subject is that you have missed four meetings since the VONC started. We have assured you multiple times that we will not talk about the VONC if that is the reason you are abstaining.
You stated above that you would try to make it up with Garf and Ricky and would attend meetings if this VONC doesn't go through. Regardless of whether the VONC goes through or not, you have responsibilities right now that I hope you’ll prioritize. I hope you will join meetings in the future, and if timing is an issue, we have reassured everyone multiple times that we’re willing to adjust anytime. However, it seems timing has generally worked well in other meetings.

[hollow blaze]

Thanks for clarifying, it's a scary thought/accusation/whatever that the council could be in rough shape like that so glad to hear it's being worked through positively.

[rain flume]

As I prioritize other channels and community help it took me a while to get here and voice my opinion as a community member. It was quite a backread but it gives great perspective and insight on the points of view from both sides of the argument.

It is my personal opinion that council members should attend their meetings and be engaged in relevant conversations. I thinks this is a wake up call for @near fjord to improve his teamwork and collaboration with the other council members because if a VONC was raised is because something needs to change.

I still understand and still remember how sleep depravation affects a person, I can also relate to loosing interest in meetings when the conversations wander off into topics that do not tackle real solutions to the problems at hand. As part of this community I have always appreciated the **CONSTAT **engagement that F4ETH has in it, I still feel represented and heard from him, his social interaction in discord helping the community and his engaging posts in X show me he has his eye on the community and his actions don't feel politically driven.

I was going to remain neutral but I'm not Sweden and after reading the evidence presented I don't feel like his actions, or lack of thereof, at this point in time warrant his removal from council so it is a 👎 from me. I suggest he takes this criticism to grow, don't skip the meetings on purpose and improve in the areas that are lacking. If this does not pass I would like an update on the ICC working situation in 4 - 6 weeks time.

[uncut thicket]

Do thumbs down votes actually contribute anything? Or do the vonc submitters just need to wrangle 50 of their followers to thumbs up and then throw their zILV bags at a single ICC member to kick them out? Whereas the previous election they needed this zILV to elect themselves? It appears a bit suss that if you don't follow @grave onyx and @native sandal strict expectations they will begin deliberating how to replace you from the ICC. What is the point in the DAO electing members if they will VoNC those members out later anyways?

As i mentioned in my opening post the optics on this is very off and how do we know ulterior motives isn't at play

[grave onyx]

Because council members must follow the "code of ethics" = working in good faith and for the good of the DAO

Both of which are met.

[uncut thicket]

37 upvotes - 28 downvotes mean = 9 votes out of 50 to proceed to zILV DAO vote? @grave onyx @native sandal ?

[grave onyx]

• 50 upvotes irregardless of the downvotes; 50 votes are near impossible to obtain (this number will change as more people get involved in governance)

• voting then goes to vILV voting where DAO voters make the ultimate selection

This dates back to ICCP from over a year ago which implemented this level/rules around a VoNC

The power is and always will be to the DAO at the end of the day since their vote will decide the outcome

[uncut thicket]

Then why are you encouraging people to downvote if it equates to nothing. So suss, must be nice to be a guild leader and probably have over 50 up voters ready to go....

Think about it guys

If everyone is without a doubt the VoNC is not being exploited here?

[grave onyx]

This is Implying bad faith on my part and I won't accept that.

The actions took have been justified and defended countless times in this discussion. 36 other people agree with it, do not discount their opinions

[velvet kraken]

Even if it were which I’m not saying it is or isn’t, it goes to a vILV vote which F4E bested all of the ICC on once already.

Does the process need amending? Imo yes

And I’ve communicated this to ICC

[uncut thicket]

But previously elected ICC members and there followers bags will be combined to throw another ICC member out how is that fair? Be better to re elect the entire ICC again

[grave onyx]

And it has been discussed at both IMC and ICC level already

[uncut thicket]

This isnt a referendum

[rain flume]

Down votes are good to show vILV intention, that's why I did it

[uncut thicket]

But if you have at least 50 mates your good to kick out anyone?

[grave onyx]

Also shows others who openly disagree = i am encouraging down votes as it paints a full picture

Encouraging the downvote here for example

[uncut thicket]

Even if 60 downvoters with smaller bags but managed to.elect this ICC member prior

Just consider the bigger picture and optics of it all

[urban parcel]

Feel free to open a thread in #1020759212172775464 where you can gather sentiment on your proposed changes to governance

[uncut thicket]

They had prior meetings to kick out other members for trivial things

[uncut thicket]

Later i think we see how this plays out

[grave onyx]

This has been addressed and this is based on incorrect information and partial information that honestly should have never been shared publically.

So I kindly ask that you please stop relaying false information. Thank you

** Context: **
#1300886387188568115 message

[uncut thicket]

Its all very suss, you know alot about these preceedings... someone has to raise it, i'm happy to be the bad guy. I'll await for my VoNC ticket in the mail 🙂

[grave onyx]

In regards to the internal meeting discussions being shared that are not public = I am not okay with that. There is a reason they are slimmed down as some conversations are sensitive topics.

With that said, without having the full context explained, the comments can be misconstrued and misunderstood. I do not think this was the intent, but it feels like it was the outcome.

We discussed in the informal peer reviews for everyone. I can be critical and will push back on discussion topics from the other side. Can this be abrasive - I acknowledge that it sometimes can

I am human, I am not perfect. I will make mistakes, I will apologize and I will work to improve them.

@near fjord = if the outcome of this is that you remain on council, WE will have to talk this out and find a way forward. Will it take time = yes. Will it be hard = yes. Do I believe it is possible = yes. Will I put every effort in possible = yes.

I have and always will do what I believe is best for the DAO and this will always be my intention. This is a perfect example where the community is divided on the topic and that is a matter of perspective.

[uncut thicket]

Even if the sensitive information disclosed was other ICC members deliberating ejecting existing ICC members? Think this was raised about F4E VoNC meeting being discussed by prior members so i see no difference in the context here. Are you the ICC police? @grave onyx

[hollow blaze]

I don’t know why we keep acting like 50 upvotes is all it takes to remove someone. That is just the threshold to proceed to a vILV vote which means everyone’s voice is equally valued.

Even if this had 500 upvotes, the vILV vote could still stop it and that’s at least fairer for now.

I support redoing the whole system too though.

[uncut thicket]

You are right, the issue I have its the entire DAO voting on one targeted candidate whereas the zilv was spread across many in the election. Guild members can now throw their bags to vote out those not following their leaders wishes without using their bags to vote their leader in thats all

[acoustic tusk]

You could add a required differential to the upvotes vs. downvotes ratio, but I don't see how council being accountable to ILV holders is EVER a bad idea. If there's any flaw in the system, it's that vILV isn't factored into upvoting or downvoting.

At any rate, governance revisions aren't really the subject of this thread.

[uncut thicket]

It is relevant though, optics of it all

[hollow blaze]

It feels like we’re trying to make it relevant by suggesting Ricky and Garf are acting in bad faith, and I don’t think that’s accurate or fair to them. I’ve yet to see any evidence of malicious intent here.

There wasn’t malicious intent when Garf VoNC’d me last epoch either. I even thanked him at the time for doing what he believed was best for the DAO.

Anyways. I personally think F4E has the DAO’s best interests in mind and serves the community well. My only issue with any of this has been and continues to be if he’s unwilling to cooperate with his peers and attend meetings. He’s said in this thread he’s willing to work things out with them and contribute to meetings. I hope that’s true and yall can get back to work for us.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to attempt to carve Atlas into a pumpkin. Cheers

[polar gust]

All of you knew that you were dealing with a toxic work environment, with Garf admitting that he wasn't nice to people who he felt asked dumb questions and Ricky saying he could be critcal, yet you did a VoNC now before giving some time for that all to be sorted? Your VoNC had a reason that included F4E not participating enough in meetings. Maybe there is a connection between the toxicity and the guy who knows less on some of the issues not wanting to say much.

In light of this information I am taking away my thumbs up. You guys have some stuff to figure out amongst yourselves before getting us involved.

I still have my doubts that F4E can fulfill his obligations on council. If he doesn't start going to meetings then he has to either step down or a we should do a VoNC. He should have been going this whole time but why are you all having so many meetings if 1 was the agreed upon number at the beginning?

It doesn't matter what your co-workers think of you F4E, you don't work for them. You work for the community and you are not doing the job we are paying you for if you don't go. You are also not doing your job if you aren't contributing. Tthe community stuck you in because they believe you have value both in what you think and in sharing what they think. Do it or get out.

As for the toxic work culture, keeping others from fully doing their job because you are being a jerk is just as bad as not doing the job.

I am with Tholky. I think the community should get a report of what is going on a month from now. I also suggest that every council meeting should be recorded. Community obviously can't hear the conversation but if any of you need backing that someone isn't doing their job or that someone is being toxic then maybe someone outside the council who is also under a NDA can have a listen and verify.

Get it together guys. Go to meetings, quit the toxicity, do the job we pay you to do.

[winter yarrow]

Imagine if all this energy was put towards making the game good

You guys could have passed like 50 good things by now with all the time spent here.

Check out my wishlist trending on twitter right now for illuvium features and get to work, people clearly want it

I've lost an incredible amount of respect for the illuvium brand after witnessing this

We are running out of runway and this is how you spend your last moments, in some pathetic double lose situation

[distant spade]

I don´t think community members or council members talking about anything speeds up what the people who work on the game do.
Rather I know, than I think.

[gray slate]

@native sandal was this privately brought up with @near fjord first so there was a chance to improve upon or was it just straight to a VONC?

[native sandal]

Like mentioned in the VoNC, on October second we shared what we thought each member did, to what extent and what areas should see improvement.

[mossy owl]

I also had a 121 with him and discussed the vonc once it was brought to me.

[gray slate]

Thanks both. Was a long thread so good to have confirmation

[near fjord]

As the voting window closes, I want to make a final statement to give everyone the chance to reconsider their vote if needed.

To clarify a point I’ve gone back and forth on in this discussion:

In my initial defense, I mentioned that I would no longer attend council meetings live but would instead listen to the recordings, take notes, and address any questions that arise. Given the unpredictability of my schedule with two newborns, I can't promise my full attention during live meetings, so this is how I will operate if I remain on the council.

Additionally, I no longer wish to work with Ricky or Garf. They broke our own established rules for a VoNC.

From meeting notes on 9/4:

Criteria for a Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) includes:
10% missed votes and rationale for missed votes
Rationale is required on all votes
Missing 3 meetings unexcused

As you can see, I did not meet the established criteria for a VoNC. So why was it initiated? I don’t know, and I no longer care.

They claim to have acted in good faith, but to me, acting in good faith would have meant addressing their frustrations with me directly—either privately or in a council meeting. Instead, they chose to escalate things publicly.

During the first peer review, they say they brought concerns to me, but in reality, they only agreed with what Caveman mentioned without adding anything themselves. Here’s a brief excerpt:

Caveman
"And then fight4Eth. I'll be honest, I haven't seen you as active. I know you're on Twitter, and I know you do stuff there, but I think that I should definitely see an improvement. I think that Paz, you and myself, we can all improve our game to better help the DAO out."

Rickytan77
"Pretty much what I saw."

Rickytan77
"I could list some. Honestly, Garf can be the witness. How? I kind of joked around a lot in epoch eight. I'm kind of taking this as a more serious from the start.

Garfoodle
"I agree with what Caveman and Ricky said. I don’t have anything else to add."

This concludes the peer review snippets. Aside from Caveman's comments, I never heard anything else from him, Paz, Ricky, or Garf about any concerns they may have had regarding me.

Lastly, I don’t work for Ricky, Garf, or even the other council members. I work for those who voted me in, and it’s up to them to decide if they still want me on the council.

To voters, I say this:

I will continue engaging with the community via Twitter and Discord as I have for the past three years, as promised during my campaign.
I will perform my due diligence and thorough research before voting on behalf of the community.
I will listen to council meeting recordings to stay informed on all internal discussions.
I will propose a new VoNC process to avoid similar conflicts in the future.
I will work on a proposal to ensure council members are compensated at a rate no higher than our dedicated moderators, who are the lifeblood of our community and work harder than any council member.
I will also propose structural changes to improve the Community Council’s functionality.

These are my commitments to those who would support me. Please vote accordingly.

Thank you,
Fight4Eth

@tender lantern @sleek gyro @raw sky @sterile ether @manic harness @pliant nymph @uncut thicket @young verge @thick trellis @gusty loom @velvet kraken @stiff swan @cyan sail @austere pond @merry axle

[polar gust]

I'm sad to see this is what you have chosen to do. I hope that no matter what happens you will put forward those proposals as I agree with all of them.

[mossy owl]

Hey F4E, I hope you'll be able to meet the expectations of your voters moving forward.

Regarding council compensation, I feel it’s essential that members demonstrate value that aligns with the financial support provided to us. Reducing pay instead of stepping up contributions seems counterintuitive; council members should provide a level of value that leaves the community satisfied—or even supportive of increasing pay—to ensure we continue delivering at a high standard.

If anyone on the council is not able to fully dedicate themselves to this level of contribution, perhaps it’s worth considering whether there are others who could bring that time and commitment. The community has several passionate members, including mods from this epoch’s election, who may be ready and willing to take on these responsibilities including attending meetings with the rest of the council. I'm afraid it will feel as if we are a man down if you do not contribute during these meeting. I personally also do not want to be the link between you and the rest of the council.

Right now, the precedent being set is that minimal council involvement is acceptable. But our community deserves active engagement, rationale behind decisions, and a consistent presence from us. I ask you to consider stepping up in these areas and leading by example.

Reflecting on Epoch 8, when you elected JP as the head of MSC, would you say he contributed at a similar or even higher level than currently? If you believe his contributions were significant, and with the demands of balancing your current work and family life now, perhaps it’s worth considering if he or others like Patate might serve the DAO effectively in this role. After all, our ultimate goal is to serve the DAO’s best interests. Just a rhetorical question purely for you to decide on as I mentioned in our call when I was first brought up to speed with this development.

I also want to say I am supportive of changes to the VONC process. There are many ways it could be improved. I would strongly support a process where only the people who voted for you actually decide on the fate of a VONC. Perhaps if more then 50% of the VILV who specifically voted for you have changed their minds then it would trigger the next in line. That way we avoid the other members communities ganging up on the vonc'ed individual.

Regardless of outcome, I look forward to your continued contributions and efforts to make this DAO a leader in GameFi. Let's work together to ensure that our efforts are felt across the community.

[gray slate]

I think F4E should have been directly and formally communicated with before this VONC. Not simply a casual remark in a single meeting, but a formal message or warning.

The council is blaming F4E for the lack of communication, but I think the council needs to improve on its own communication if they think this is how to resolve an issue.

"And then fight4Eth. I'll be honest, I haven't seen you as active. I know you're on Twitter, and I know you do stuff there, but I think that I should definitely see an improvement. I think that Paz, you and myself, we can all improve our game to better help the DAO out."

Is this the only warning he had before VONC? I know I've asked you already, but is this it? @native sandal @mossy owl

If this is all we're going on before a VONC then that's crazy...

I stand corrected if there's more to the story that I don't know.

[urban parcel]

there was the peer evaluation, which honestly should ring some bells on it's own and also has been discused in a meeting if i got that right of the comments above.

[gray slate]

I think the peer evaluation (the quote F4E provided) was the meeting unless I'm mistaken.

[stiff swan]

You always have a plate at my dinner table. I'm so tired of this finger pointing. illuvium needs frequent updates and bug fixes. We shouldnt have to wait months. Soon we will need your marketing skills. I seriously hope all this division chills out some and people start focusing on illuvium instead of other people. together we are strong.

[polar gust]

I too am concerned about the precedent this sets and don't think one of you should have to be a liason because F4E doesn't want to talk to fellow council members. Yes, F4E was elected by the community but so were Ricky and Garf. Council members should not get a choice of who they will or won't work with, that is the community's choice, not theirs.

[urban parcel]

possible, i don't know.
But i don't think after such an evaluation there are no talks about it on how to improve in areas were one performs weak.
Maybe everybody knew already why points were low and what/how to improve.
At least i would have raised questions and wanted to talk about it where i would have performed lower than a 4 for the sake of improvement.

[gray slate]

I would have raised questions also, but regardless I think a direct formal warning would have been beneficial. At least in this circumstance it would have, there would have been concrete evidence of a "strike", yet all we have is the quote about seeing an improvement. At a workplace, you get a direct formal message stating that you need to improve or your out. There were mentions of underperformance but no formal "strike", that's why this VONC appears to be a shock to F4E.

[urban parcel]

what makes you think a formal strike would have changed anything?
Here we are with a vonc and in his last message he is stating he will proceed the same as before the evaluation, even doing less with not attending the meetings.

[gray slate]

Yeah I don't like that either, but yes a formal strike would change things. It would make me upvote this VONC as I would have a clear conscience that F4E had a true fair warning that if he didn't change he would be kicked out. The guy is looking after twins, he probably knew he was underperforming due to being busy, but not to the extent of being kicked out.

[urban parcel]

There is a team of 5 people.
And this is basically 4 people saying the fifth does absolutely nothing council related.
I think he should have been well aware that he is very much underperforming in the eyes of the other council members.

[gray slate]

Average score is what counts which you chose to remove. 3/5 is average, dude scored 2/5 and is looking after twins.

[urban parcel]

looking after twins is for sure super rough, i respect it and i wouldn't want to be in his shoes. But that in my opinion has nothing to do with work. You should not apply for a job, knowing you won't have time for it beforehand.
I cut the rest out because it doesn't really have an impact on this epoch. The 3 in proposal developement can't even be judged since he didn't do a proposal. theoretically it should be a 1. Can't judge the knowledge&expertise, and where the 2 in proposal evaluation comes from

[gray slate]

Fair enough, I'm just saying the VONC was clearly a shock to F4E, so a formal strike at lleast would have gave him a chance and also would give people like me validation to vote on the VONC. That's all I wanted to say, not here to argue, just trying to improve things in case we get a similar situation in the future.

[urban parcel]

yea that's fair enough.
i'm sure we will see changes to the whole process.

[hollow blaze]

There should be an internal strike process, similar to a PIP (performance improvement plan) in trad corporate, before a VoNC is sprung imo.

Or at least as the standard, with a flash VoNC being appropriate in cases of ethical or serious breaches of fiduciary responsibility.

I’d push for this, at least.

It’s way more efficient and productive to take an already committed councilor and train them to be better than for the reflex reaction to be replacement imo.

That’s at least what I’ve learned by running a company with 20+ employees that I would rather train than fire and replace.

This of course requires the subject of the “issue” to be willing to improve. If there’s is a breakdown of communication preventing that from happening then it’s obviously not so simple.

[polar gust]

If the council doesn't do it themselves then I will be attempting my first IIPs after this is over. It needs to be in the employment agreement that a formal written warning must be issued before a VoNC and that members are required to attend meetings.

[acoustic tusk]

Meetings in particular are already covered in Gov V3.

[hollow blaze]

I’ll help you with it, needs to be clearer and the IMC liaison on the ICC needs to be responsible for performance improvement plans imo + strikes prior to a “non emergency” VoNC.

[native sandal]

3 is not average but the minimum before a VoNC could formally be lodged.
Lower than a 3 for governance participation or average would put you up to be judged by the IMC and in certain cases see a vonc.
A 1.75 or 2 is subpar and would likely have caused a similar situation as we are having now, but then 2 months from now during our official quarterly peer evaluation. We could have likely waited for that evaluation as well. But believed it necessary to make changes sooner rather than later. (quarterly is up in the air as last epoch we only saw one during the 9 months)

I agree that a formal strike would be a positive change that could smoothen out the process in the case of a VoNC started by the council themselves.

(IIP 35 - image)

[polar gust]

It is? Then why is this even being discussed? F4E has said he won't attend meetings, shouldn't that just be an automatic dismissal if it is already in the rules as a requirement?

[acoustic tusk]

There is no automatic dismissal system. Removal is handled through VONC.

[polar gust]

In other words: "We have these requirements you MUST follow unless you have enough friends who won't vote you out even if you don't follow them."
Why bother having the requirements at all?

[hollow blaze]

Not relevant to the current situation but would that imply if someone on the council is incapacitated, they have to be VoNC’d to be removed still?

Asking cuz I want to address that in an updated VoNC IIP

[acoustic tusk]

Not meeting the requirements can serve as grounds for a VONC. Ultimately, the community is allowed to disagree with premises or requirements, or even just specific circumstances which can arise. As a representative elected group, council serves the community.

If the community feels meetings don't need to be attended, there should be a revision to Governance documentation to account for that. Personally, I think that's an AWFUL idea, but that's strictly my opinion.

[polar gust]

So, requirements are more like suggestions of council behaviour. If someone doesn't meet them then it is an indicator that perhaps community should re-think the person's capabiliy and it goes to a VoNC. Actually it doesn't even mean that.

I see the word "requirements" and understand it to be a non-negotiable, follow or be fired. Thanks for clearing that up. I understand now why the conversation is still going on.

[fallen siren]

Its disheartening to read your final statement since not only are you not willing to improve on the items raised and triggered this VoNC but have communicated that you would actually do less moving forward in the field of collaboration. I hope you would reconsider this position.

---

Id also like to take this opportunity to correct some fallacies about VoNC and resposibilities and expectations of a council member.

Criteria for a Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) includes:
10% missed votes and rationale for missed votes
Rationale is required on all votes
Missing 3 meetings unexcused

There is nothing as specific as this in Gov v2 where VoNC was first introduced nor is it found in ICCP-15.

Basis for VoNC under Gov v2:

The purpose of a vote of no confidence is to remove a council member who is not performing their duties or meeting the community’s expectations and/or the sub-council role expectations. A Vote of No Confidence may be initiated by the community (ILV holders and stakers) or the IMC.

x x x

Rationale:
It is imperative that the DAO be able to operate in a decentralized fashion, and part of that is ensuring ILV stakers have recourse to take action against underperforming elected council members. Additionally, sub-councils are more likely to identify underperforming fellow council members prior to the community, and can take action to remove such council members.

While ICCP 15 further goes into detail as to what constitutes as a VONC-able:

d) Reason/s for the VoNC (multiple choices can be selected) -

1. Non-performance: Issues related to council members' attendance, participation in meetings, and responsiveness to proposals.
2. Conduct contrary to DAO: Actions that are detrimental to the DAO or project, safeguarding the community's interests.
3. Gross Violation of the Code of Ethics: Major violations or a pattern of behaviour that contradicts the community's Code of Ethics.
4. False or Misrepresentation of Information (nomination or otherwise)
5. Others: This option permits initiators to describe unique circumstances that may not fit into the predefined categories.

Expectations of Council service is outlined in Gov v2 as well:

During service to the DAO, active participation is critical to fulfilling the duties for which the individual is being compensated. This includes but is not limited to attending and actively participating in all relevant council meetings, appropriate engagement within the community (most commonly through Discord), sharing thoughts and rationale for decisions following any vote, and engagement in public debates, particularly in the relevant Discord channels (such as Ideas, #iip-iccp-discussion or sub-council specific channels).

Meetings will be held in Discord (or equivalent technology) chat, utilizing voice. Every council member must be willing to use voice chat, as text only engagement does not fulfill the responsibilities set forth by the DAO for council governance.

x x x

A mandatory attendance of all bi-monthly meetings, and participation in all votes shall be expected.

Ongoing failure to fulfill participation or attendance requirements may result in a Vote of No Confidence.

Your unwillingness to participate in meetings runs against what is expected of you as a council member. And if the reason is due to prior commitments then that is a disservice to the DAO to which you say you work for.

Additionally, while you dont work for Garf, Ricky, or the other council members. You are required and expected to work WITH them as part of the same council.

---

On VoNC improvements. I admit that it needs more work. If we all remember in gov v1 there was no such VoNC. It was introduced in Gov v2 after a recurring incident with previous members. Then ICCP 15 was introduced after the Vetemor VoNC. This just means its constantly evolving as it should be and discussions are already ongoing on how this should be addressed.

So I tried to reply to F4E but he has already blocked me or some discord issue. Got some weird clyde bot error that I dont share a server with the recipient.

[fallen siren]

I dont think it applies squarely. The situation in trad companies is youre doing PIP to regular employees while council members are voted in. In the same manner that you dont PIP a "board member" in a trad company you just do a vote of no confidence. Plus adding this extra layer makes it complicated when someone outside the council initiates a vonc. Would the DAO need to wait for an internal warning? Not sure how that would go. [Feedback thread warning to XXX council member] 😄

The fact that this process goes through multiple hoops is a lot already. Theres the whole process of filling up the form then getting 50 vote sentiment then finally vILV voting. Not sure if adding more and more into it is the right way to go or we look to streamline things rather than make it more complex.

[hollow blaze]

Yeah I guess external VoNC is more complex. Maybe they should be treated differently from the start, whether an “internal” or “external” VoNC.

[polar gust]

All it needs is an Asterik directly on the review page that says *Any score under 3 is an indication that the council member is not performing adequately and is being considered for a VoNC if there is not improvement in X # of days.
That way when the chart is shown in the VoNC community members can see that yes, there was a warning given of the consequences that would follow if changes were not made.

[hollow blaze]

Also, I’m not sure if it’s more or less accurate to compare a BoD to a Council or if it’s like employees working for the DAO. I think my gut feeling is the latter.

I think perhaps the IMC could be more akin to a BoD but the ICC to me feels more like employees of the DAO.

Idk. Like you said I don’t think it fits neatly in any existing structure so it’s hard to draw comparisons.

But also kinda off topic. My b. 😝

[near fjord]

Says the IMC council member who lets Ani get away with missing 67% of meetings.

[near fjord]

The funny thing is @mellow nacelle had the nerve to lecture me and up vote this VoNC.

[mellow nacelle]

I’ve missed 2 of 8 meetings the IMC has had this epoch when I was in Asia for Token 2049 and the Tokyo Game Show events after letting the council know that I would be unavailable due to travel.

I also abstained here by both up and down voting as I think there is plenty of opportunity for both sides to find a better pathway forward for the rest of the epoch to focus on more important priorities

[velvet kraken]

Up and down voting is basically an upvote in the current system and less of an abstain

[near fjord]

missing 2 out of 8 is not 67%, are you saying 2 are not excused and the other 3 are excused?

I never wanted to drag anyone's name through the mud but the hypocrisy some council member have is astounding.

all this could have been discussed internally but Ricky wanted to do Ricky things

[grave onyx]

I feel I need to jump in here since this is my tracker I built (updated: and inputted the data = still pending audit for any minor errors)

The attendance in the image is based off 3 public IMC meeting notes available at the time the tracker was made & filled out

This is reflective from Septembers meetings only (1 attended, 2 missed = 33.33% attendance)

[near fjord]

If this is true then my criticism was too harsh

[mellow nacelle]

The criticism would have been more than warranted had I only made 1/3 of the meetings this epoch. We had 9 weeks of mtgs (including the week before the epoch started) and one was canceled. I missed only the two I was traveling for Web3 gaming IRL events.

[near fjord]

@hollow blaze Really wants my council position, getting people he knows who are not involved in the community to vote is pretty low.

Also, but no proof of connection to JP

[hollow blaze]

i actually would prefer you just stay in the position, you saying you don't want to attend meetings is deeply concerning to me. I shared it with my team at Arcade and asked them to educate themselves since we have a lot invested in Illuvium for a member of the council to be AFK. I'm not going to apologize for asking members of our company to educate themselves on a matter that directly impacts the performance of one of our largest portfolio positions lol.

So no, I don't "really want it", what I really want is for you to do your job tbh, or put someone in that will do the job.

I've actually said multiple times in this very thread that my preferred outcome is you just doing your job instead of openly stating your plan is to do the opposite.

If there's a conflict in that then my vote would be for Blickter to take your spot.

[near fjord]

Says the guy who missed 5 votes during his time on council.

[hollow blaze]

You're spending a lot of time in here just mudslinging. Ani, Garf, Ricky, me. Spend less time on that and just do the job. I guarantee over half of the upvotes in here are only here because openly refusing to collaborate with others on the Council is the line you don't cross. Myself included.

[near fjord]

I never wanted none of this shit

[rain flume]

Can we please go back to based arguments, this finger pointing is just going around in circles

[uncut thicket]

33% !!!! 😮 two of which are due to other work commitments, yet when F4E missed one meeting due to work commitments a VoNC has occured. I certainly hope @native sandal & @grave onyx will apply the same strict expectations upon other council members missing meetings and lodge the relevant VoNC to keep things fair. Honestly this is all a bit ridiculous? Not trying to target anyone, but this is all very very hypocritical

[near fjord]

Here is an explanation #1300886387188568115 message

[uncut thicket]

Yep the volumes skew the %s for sure. Regardless why wasnt a VoNC raised then? When you missed a meeting a VoNC was applied/discussed fairly quickly

[grave onyx]

50 Upvotes 👍 have been Reached

[velvet kraken]

This has now moved to Snapshot Voting: #📰〕governance-news message

[velvet kraken]

This post is locked

[velvet kraken]

[DECLINED] [VoNC] Vote Of No Confidence - Fight4ETH