We’ll do approval voting by “Like”-ing the candidates you prefer over the others, who you refrain from “Like”-ing,
Note that liking all of them has the same effect as liking none of them.
Likes from accounts created after the original call for candidates will be discarded, as will a Like from the candidate themselves.
All three candidates for the 6th Community Council member have their post online now:
Candidates ; @johndavies24 @Mokhtar @Cobragrin
Check out their post and give your support/Like to the candidate(s) that best represents your vision for Grin as a project. Supporting multiple candidates is allowed.
After discussing it with the other council members, we decided to move the voting deadline with two weeks, so Voting ends on Sunday the 15th of May! The reason is that there has been no newsletter with a link to vote for all three candidates since two of them submitted their candidacy just after the last newsletter was send. @NewJack777 In the next newsletter, can you put a link to this forum thread, the main message. I will update it with the new deadline and a link to al three candidates.
Are you sure, a lot of people are voting and supporting you?
Anyhow, plenty of ways to help Grin as project, both from within or outside of any counsil, so it is up to you to decide in which way you want to contribute.
Yes, I’m sure. Last election I was banned from the forum for saying something on keybase that an OC member had just said himself… My candidacy had to be posted by someone else. This time I follow all the rules and I’m ahead and now the voting period is extended. Whatever the reasons are for the extension doesn’t really matter, the current voting patterns still reveal that I’m a controversial candidate. I’d rather voluntarily not participate than bea controversial candidate when the other two candidates are great options.
You are so, so likely you would have won this election. It was a mistake on my side to set the deadline only 19 days after my initial post without waiting for candidates to put their candidacy online. Not having a single newsletter with a link to the candidates, well apart from yours since you were responsible enough to directly put your candidacy out , is not really good for an unbiased vote.
You are indeed ‘a controversial member’. Controversy can however also be good thing, being controversial is often an indication that you are at the front-line of change. Your ideas and opinions are being listened to, no matter any ‘controversy’. This can for example be seen in the large scale buying of miners from the CC fund, which is used for both security and to build an income of Grin for the CC. This was first proposed by you:
So whether it is from within or outside of the CC, keep voicing your opinion and ideas.
I’m also annoyed by the extension of the election. My first thought was that if one does not like the result, there are actually 3 ways to prevent it:
one does not accept the result.
one votes again.
one extends the election period so long until one has the pleasing result.
I supported your candidacy because i am of the opinion that it is fundamentally important to have people around who are not afraid to take a controversial stand on topics. However how this went down i can understand your reasons perfectly and i am of the opinion that this extension was not the best move going forward.
I was also in doubt to extend since I already did for-see the risk of having this discussion . Hence I first discussed it with the other community council members. This is however also an unfortunate downside of @johndavies24 history. Automatically anything is perceived in relation to that history, which is not something I can prevent.
Extending an election should not change the results of any unbiased election right? Hence, if an extension changes the results, it only would mean that the election was biased. It was still most likely that @johndavies24 would have won the election.
In any case I do respect his decisions and reasons for withdrawing even though I am a bit torn about it.
I very much doubt they’ve extended the voting period to go against you since you’re leading by a lot and the community doesn’t have enough active members to make someone else surpass you. I would also guess that you could probably get more easily new votes than the other candidates. So my guess is that there was nothing shady, just an honest mistake in when this was announced. Was the choice to extend it made in private? Yes, as it should be. Thinking that cc chats must be public makes no sense to me, what should be public is their decision and explanations and the decision was explained by @Anynomous. Sure, maybe they’ve made a mistake, but your reaction was not really exemplary either