Enable Full-Time Contributors to Vote with Vesting Tokens

[Thomas_Hepner]

I am against this proposal. @Matthew_Graham and @mel.eth have perfectly echoed my own thoughts in the comments below.

@Matthew_Graham

For me, I look at this with a real simple logic. Do we pay forward governance voting power for services not yet rendered based on trust or do we not.

If we do it for one type of contributor, then we shall treat all contributors equal. We do not want to encourage a tier ranking within the community.

@mel.eth

I feel that salaried contributors via this proposal are demonstrating a cavalier stance toward governance power and signaling little motivation for distributing that power to the broader and largely speculative contributor community. These are governance tokens, the very means we use to organize toward productive ends, and we’re very much putting the cart way out ahead of the horse if we start moving that power around without people having earned it yet. Just because I trust a person doesn’t mean I want to set up an entire process that relies on trust. Those fortunate enough to pull a salary here have earned the right to 15,000 votes over the specified timeframe and accelerating that sets a dangerous precedent.

This comment from @fallow8 when the Autonomy Group was being formed feels highly relevant here as well.

@fallow8

One suggestion I’d like to make. That there be no more than one Full-time Contributor representing the Coop in this group. That might seem counterintuitive, but one of the opacity concerns I have is that there is (or was) a weekly meeting with Set and the full-timers where it seems there’s an extra level of candor or high-level decision making. Also, with Set holding the cards and each of these contributors having a vesting contract with the Coop, there’s an unavoidable dynamic that I know I’d have trouble preventing from creeping into my own perspective without significant effort to battle subconscious bias.