The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two. We are voting FOR the proposal. The amendments make sense and help define the role of the Anticapture Commission and the responsibilities of its members more clearly.
https://gov.optimism.io/t/season-6-anticapture-commission-amendment/8124/10?u=lefterisjp
This mostly clarifies and slightly reduces the scope of duties for the ACC. In particular, it is now clearly stated that the ACC is not required to vote on proposals that are not technical upgrades or subject to Citizen’s House veto, though it may still choose to do so if it prefers.
We're iteratingggggg
https://gov.optimism.io/t/brichis-delegate-communication-thread/6353/19
We voted in favor of the Amendment since the adjustments made are heading in the right direction.
The amendment and clarification make sense and we support continuity of ACC.
Simplifying the process is a good step forward, we need some structure to keep people engaged, but no reason to make work for the sake of work
beep boop
This will promote a better and more effective ACC commission.
Voted for: Amendments seem to be in line with the ACC retrospective.
The amendments look reasonable considering the scope of the commission
https://curialab.notion.site/Anticapture-Commission-Amendment-5eaf2e490c414ec9ba31d945310a685f
Voting FOR the proposal.
Hope to one day be members of this badass council
The frog concurs.