{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I am voting NO to replace the Constitution with the proposed constitution v2.4 for the same reasons as outlined in previous votes which can be found in transaction hash 8474b8633cde93e34da9ee905b30a79158ec4cd6e41f24656f24d43a5fca902c from five months and four days ago, and 07c64c03ff524e8a76be9dad5df8c3a4b32c0e383ce611bd8aec118a8b791b4b from two months and fourteen days ago. The current Constitution has barely just turned twelve months old and here I am voting on proposed changes for the third time in six months. While I appreciate that the current Constitution identifies itself as a “living document” with future amendments encouraged when the community and ecosystem deem it necessary, it also isn’t an iOS update.\n\nThere is a reason that updating the constitution has such a high threshold of 75% and that it is because it is the most fundamental guiding document for Cardano governance. While amendments may be necessary, attempts to change it so often risks undermining the legitimacy of the document itself. Admittedly, one of these proposals has yet to pass but here we are, voting on it for the third time in six months and my timeline is currently filled with hurried calls to vote, daily callouts to large voting power DReps and unhappy posts when anyone dares to vote or comment negatively against the proposal. It begins to raise another question as to how much of this is for the benefit of the ecosystem and how much is for personal achievement at this point.\n\nI have previously voted no on the grounds of the large number of changes at once and for the level of accessibility for the community to participate. I still feel that there are too many changes at once here and it feels as though this is a product of attempting to please everyone at once in order to get one of these proposals passed. The proposer has argued in favour of bulk changes because individual updates could risk voter fatigue and lower turnouts over time, yet here we are for the third time in six months trying to pass a bulk edit to the Constitution. A process which in itself is already wearing thin for some and highlights that constitutional updates should be agreed upon through iteration rather than attrition. If DReps start to vote yes in the hope that they don’t have to face yet another update constitution vote three months down the line, this would also undermine the legitimacy of any eventually approved update.\n\nThese are largely procedural issues rather than content issues but they are important as the process should be informing the content. I am not saying that any amendments should go through as vigorous a process as the current Constitution and while it has been argued that there has been large community input already and that the past governance actions form part of that process, where is the evidence included in this particular proposal? The proposal simply lists the constitution text changes and links to documentation showing those changes. There are no links to any collaborative documentation or attribution of changes made to those who have suggested the edits. I know at least one document exists as it has been shared on social media and it really should be linked in this proposal as part of the supporting links to demonstrate the level of community contribution. Consider the depth of supporting links in the proposal for the currently active Constitution (https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/bafkreiehcekhhsq34ccezwn46brg3euj6tbs4g4yjkav34ukqvbnzaya2a) in contrast to supporting links provided in this proposal (https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/bafkreigxpweqv2rnh7ajt5hzdq6gikogmaq3nbyof5uvdntc4hkg52ghqy). See also the level of supporting documentation of recorded community feedback for the “Cardano 2030” Info Action (gov_action18fd7jwa06fksmwumlcvlft8v4guvaa672qsp6xgenekvs4kmvcqsq8cqks4) also currently up for vote at the moment.\n\nAnother issue I have regarding the content of the proposal is the adherence to the Constitution Specification as outlined in CIP-120. There is at least one glaringly obvious instance where text does not conform to the 80-character per line limit as outlined in CIP-120. Article II, Section 7, item 4 “as a part of such funding request to cover the cost of periodic independent audits and the implementation of oversight metrics as to the use of such ada.” CIP-120 “aims to describe a standardized technical form for the Cardano Constitution to enhance the accessibility and safety of the document.” While only currently implemented by one governance tool, if this proposed constitution is to be around for a long-time, it would be beneficial to future-proof the text so that it is compatible with more governance tooling that may seek to implement this CIP going forward.\n\nMy reservations are largely procedural issues and I am left with questions regarding the evidence of the level of community collaboration. How many of the original Constitutional Delegates and Alternates have given feedback on this current proposal? How much interaction has taken place between the proposer and Intersect Civics Committee? I know there is at least one attempt to formalise an amendment process under the Civics Committee and while Intersect doesn’t have to be the sole arbiter of governance processes in a permissionless system, the Civics Committee is one current example of an attempt to at least define a constitutional amendment process. It should be noted that this is a (singular) process and not the (definitive) process currently being worked on by the Constitutional Amendment Process (CAP) Working Group."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}