Hi Primero DAO peeps! I have a question for you. As we expand the number of voting members (those who can upvote/downvote new proposals), we need to answer an important question: Should we allow technical vendors to be voting members?
My opinion–> I think it is a good idea to have technical people/devs involved in vetting and quality checking proposals for lots of reason (understanding the platforms capabilities, sequencing, dependencies) but I don’t think they should be able to vote on financial part of the proposal. What do others think
1 Like
Vendors (who are the technical leads of Primero) must get in a say in all proposals to check feasibility, verify cost, check integration options etc. Ultimately, any proposal which has the fundamental support of the tech leads must be put to vote. This process of getting a proposal to a place where its technically feasible and makes sense should ideally be done on discourse. The snapshot voting space is for the overall community to vote on a finalized and well written out proposal. This makes sense as not every member in the DAO would take part in every discussion, whats important is that fully fleshed out proposals are seen by (ideally) all the voting members of the DAO.
With the above background, I believe it is not useful to provide the vendors with voting rights, but it is important for the vendors to get their say in from the point of view of integrating any proposed changes to the Primero codebase.
As long as vendors cannot vote on their own proposals I think vendors should have a vote. Diversity of voting rights will make the DAO stronger IMO
In my experience the vendors provide valuable input in how a possible proposal could be integrated from a business analysis and user experience perspective.
In the case of Primero, vendors are the lead developers and understand technological direction, platform coherence, and feasibility. They should absolutely get to vote on proposals. From experience, customers often come with a preconceived notion about what a tool is supposed to do rather than exploring the underlying business problem that technology is supposed to solve. While those issues are best handled during a constructive discussion of a feature, a vote can act as a final check on the process. I agree with Ian about restricting votes where there is an explicit conflict of interest.