Formation of the Autonomy Kick-Off Group

What is the point of this sentiment check, especially the second one? Plenty of other people have been nominated and putting up a poll with limited options doesn’t feel like the best next step. While I agree that there should only be 1 FT contributor on this group, the second poll doesn’t have a composition that I would prefer. Why were only these 3 combinations picked and why do all of them include @fallow8 and @Matthew_Graham?

I believe everyone who has been nominated should be included in the survey without pre-selected options.


I wholeheartedly agree with you and am trying to figure out how to structure the survey for the voting period based on community feedback.

For instance, if the community wants only 1 FT contributor in the group of 5, which FT contributor would they prefer?

I made the brief sentiment check based on the poll @Matthew_Graham made, @dylan’s suggestion for a group, and my own suggestion for a group.

My intention is not to leave anyone out so please feel free to perform your own sentiment check or suggest changes to the process.

I would simply have 2 separate questions on the survey with 1) Which 2 community members you want on this group and 2) Which 1 FT contributor you want on this group? Then list everyone who has been nominated under 1) and list 4 FT contributors under 2. I don’t think we need a sentiment check for that.


Yes, I agree - that’s probably the right way to do it assuming people want there to be only 1 FT contributor.

Separately from the above, I would also like to see the period for nominations extended by 2 days. This is arguably one of the most important strategic conversations for the Coop, yet we are giving folks 4 days to nominate representatives, 2 of which are the weekend.

Strongly agree. Logging back on on a Monday to find such a lengthy topic has taken place over a weekend, sentiment polls and all is a good way to induce contributor anxiety!

I appreciate the collective desires to move forward quickly however launching forum debates over weekends imo is not the best way to capture full community participation.

On to business… I think one day looking back, a key stakeholder group in frequent communication will all seem very obvious so it’s great to see this taking shape.

Having Felix, Scott and a select group representing IC is the right way to go imo. 3 seems about right (great shout by @fallow8, +1 from me on 1 FT member), maybe we shortlist 5 (it’s great to see names coming in but we cannot assume all nominations will necessarily want or have the capacity for the additional responsibilities.)

Personally, I would like to see these [term tbc] “community reps”? rotate. I therefore would like to propose a re-nomination period every 3 months with no one member to serve more than 2 terms on the bounce.


My understanding is that this group is not meant to be permanent. As I see it, the goal is to come up with a consensus roadmap for autonomy, not necessarily be responsible for its execution or ongoing development.


Fair, thanks for pointing out. Will defer the suggestion until execution.

It’s testament to the strength of our community that so many credible names have been volunteered :muscle:

In agreement with @verto0912 on :point_up: approach. This means the group would be comprised of: Scott, Felix, 1 FT and 2 non-FT community members. Voting should be run listing all nominated individuals unless they explicitly choose to opt out.

I would also like to propose we use a rank-order voting framework (Instant-runoff voting / Alternative Voting) to make the selection decisions. This BBC articles is quite helpful in explaining how rank order voting works (called AV here).

There is ample evidence of the improved outcomes rank-order voting could offer, including:

  • Promotes majority support - Provides an outcome more reflective of the majority of voters
  • Provides more choice for voters - Voters can vote for the candidate they truly feel is best, without concern about the spoiler effect.
  • Minimizes strategic voting - Voters can vote honestly for who they believe is the best candidate, without a need to “vote strategically”.
Please indicate which voting model you would prefer
  • Rank order voting
  • First past the post
  • Need more information on the options

0 voters

Practically, “choice voting” is a website that would allow us to run rank order voting if we choose that over “first past the post” approach

Extra info


Strongly in support of this. There is mountain of literature on why Ranked Order voting is associated with more equitable societies. Great idea.


Think @MrMadila and @verto0912 raise a good point here.

Maybe we can I would keep the nominations period the same (ends 21st of July) but extend the voting period to finish 9am GMT Tuesday?

  • this would give people more time to ensure their votes are tallied on this vital strategic matter, and
  • allow us to do a final plug for voting at the Weekly Planning Call (26th) - before then announcing the results at the Org Call (28th).
1 Like

@Pepperoni_Joe @gregdocter I think this is a good balance that incorporates feedback.

@verto0912 @MrMadila Would this work for you both? If so, will change the forum post to reflect @Pepperoni_Joe 's suggestion.

Just to save everyone scrolling up and down

  • Nomination Period: The nomination period will last from 12:00 PM (7:00 PM UTC) 16th of July to 12:00 PM (7:00 PM UTC) 21st of July.
  • Voting Period: The voting period will last from 2:00 PM (9:00 PM UTC) 21st of July to 2:00 PM (9:00 PM UTC) 23 of July.

Wed org call finishes at 7 PM UTC. Recommend a soft closing time to capture any post-call remaining choices.

@Pepperoni_Joe 8:00 AM UTC 27th July :+1:

We, Set, nominate @setoshi


Hi all,

I just wanted to provide an update on our approach to voting.

We will be using STV voting for both Core Team (x1), and Community Member positions (x2) in the Autonomy Kick-Off Groups.

This youtube video provides an EXCELLENT introduction to why STV is so much more effective and equitable than other voting systems (STV is a type of rank order voting).

To vote, you will need to log on using your unique voter ID. You can view your voter ID here. Everyone who has received a reward over the last 2 months will see their unique ID listed. In addition, I have provided 10 “extra” unique voter ids to use for people not on the list.

Why this system
All robust elections have to have some way of preventing voter spam / repeating voting. Whilst not 100% fix for this, using voter IDs in this way prevents us from having to collect every Coop members email address in advance of the vote.

If the approach throws up any major issues, we will address them accordingly. Please note, whilst voter IDs need to be entered to vote, the voting process itself is anonymous.

So just to reiterate, you can vote for nominations through:


This is amazing. I look forward to participating in this new method of voting. Very efficient. :grinning:

Thanks for coordinating and streamlining this.

1 Like

Hate to be awkward but doesn’t publically sharing the keys create the potential to compromise the integrity of the vote?

In a nutshell - yes @MrMadila. However, no more than the other methods we were going to use up until I posted this update (google forms, forum posts etc).

If we are worried the election might be comprised, the solution would be the message everyone their unique voter ID and password on Discord. However, I simply don’t have the time to do that today. Is that something you would be interested in doing? I can then remove the full list of IDs from this post.

1 Like

Loaded with GWG stuff right now.

I’d say the risk is very low but thought it was worth highlighting.

cryptouf is in here twice.

Removed double entry - thanks for the spot Verto!

@MrMadila - think its something we can definitely look to address before the next round of voting.

1 Like