gov_action1zhuz5djmmmjg8f9s8pe6grfc98xg3szglums8cgm6qwancp4eytqqmpu0pr
Action Identifier
gov_action1zhuz5djmmmjg8f9s8pe6grfc98xg3szglums8cgm6qwancp4eytqqmpu0pr [1]
Atlantic Council Vote Results
| Vote |
Tally |
| Constitutional |
5 |
| Unconstitutional |
0 |
| Abstain |
1 |
| Did Not Vote |
0 |
Supporting Rationale
- The interim constitution does not place restrictions, procedures, or
requirements on the naming of hard forks. The interim constitution does
specify that: ‘utilizes wherever possible and beneficial blockchain technology
in the governance process’. Ergo, proposing the naming of a hard fork via an
Info Action is constitutional. [2: Preamble, Paragraph 3]
Dissenting Rationale
Considerations
- There are no established standards amongst the community or within the interim
constitution for determining the name of a hard fork.
[2: Appendix I, Section 9]
- The proposal provides little justification for the decision, however, the
minimum requirements are provided and thus should be judged at the discretion
of the voting and representative bodies (SPOs and dReps).
[2: Article III, Section 6, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2]
- The Constitution does not provide details of the process or procedure for
documents to be hashed, for example: compliance with CIP-100 is not a
constitutional requirement. Given that the file was published via IPFS which
itself already includes a hash of the document, and the provided hash is
reproducible and verifiable [3], we consider this aligned with the intent
of the constitution. [2: Article III, Section 6, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1]
References
- CardanoScan Governance
Explorer, https://cardanoscan.io/govAction/gov_action1zhuz5djmmmjg8f9s8pe6grfc98xg3szglums8cgm6qwancp4eytqqmpu0pr
- Interim Constitution, https://constitution.gov.tools
- Document Hashing & Validation
Explanation, https://github.com/Crypto2099/cardano-governance/blob/main/actions/gov_action1zhuz5djmmmjg8f9s8pe6grfc98xg3szglums8cgm6qwancp4eytqqmpu0pr.md