​Important clarification for those who, like me, aren't very technical. Thank you!

Vote: Yes

Reasoning:
- Financial Impact: The proposal does not involve any direct financial expenditure, as Volky is not requesting any immediate compensation. Therefore, financial sustainability is not affected.

- Contribution and Experience: Volky has extensive development experience within the Nouns ecosystem, with previous projects like Noundry Studio and Nomo Nouns demonstrating his capability and contribution to the community.  

- Governance Transparency: Volky commits to consulting the DAO before making significant changes and promotes a more collaborative and community-driven maintenance approach, aligning with the principles of decentralization and transparency.  

- Potential Benefits: By improving development tools and processes, the overall efficiency and community engagement of Nouns DAO may be enhanced. Although there is no direct ROI, it contributes to the ecosystem's healthy development in the long term.

We’re always open to putting the right people in the right positions, but we don’t believe the potential legal and structural consequences of this have been fully discussed (unless we missed this?)

We’re not pretending to be experts here, but Wylin raises valid concerns. We’d love to see more dialogue before moving forward, especially around the risks this might create for the DUNA and DAO as a whole.

Trust Volky’s track record as an active builder within the ecosystem who understands decentralizing codebase stewardship aligns with long-term resilience + fostering broader contributor participation.

Votes from the Nouniverse ⌐◨-◨

Every $NOGS holder now has a voice in deciding how the NOGS pool of Nouns votes on each Nouns proposal.

Cast your vote on your Noggles Dashboard, earn more $NOGS!

FOR: 427.81M $NOGS
AGAINST: 27.42K $NOGS

147120 $NOGS have been shared among the voters.

volky has earned the respect of many in the on chain community.

seen the good and the bad of nouns.

and here offering services for... maybe retro. (back to the he knows how nouns operates. and understands nothing is certain.)

++

Yes ser!

i've worked with volky extensively over the past few years and vouch for his abilities and integrity

PizzaDAO Governance Votes FOR:
"Please fix nouns.wtf I love it." - Enzo Pepperoni
"Volky's alright in my book." - Don Scrimmy John
"For Pony! https://www.lfg.co/page/42/" - Oscar Frog
"Who's this guy? Volky's not in my book." - Bacon Soprano
"Are you gonna be the angel that will save nouns.wtf?" - Don Pizza Czech
"⌐◨-◨" - Peas
"Eat my shorts, Volky!" - Dononymous

I figure if we're giving Volky a noun, they're a trusted member of the community, and I like how they have outlined their experience and noted they'll consult the DAO.

Last week, someone DMed me on X asking why nouns.wtf wasn't loading their Noun. When I asked ‘Which one, ser?’ they sent ‘nouns.wtf/noun/96’—and I froze. Was this a phishing trap? That’s exactly why I’m voting YES here: let Volky handle these merges so we don’t have to risk losing clients over faulty software.

Big yes!

I think it's a benefit to the DAO to have active maintainers of the repo

For - Wins

FOR - 25 VOTES

floofys | *"As a Nouncillor, I dislike the anonymity with which the voting takes place. So I will always provide a reason for my votes.

I figure if we're giving Volky a noun, they're a trusted member of the community, and I like how they have outlined their experience and noted they'll consult the DAO.

I'm Floofys and I approve this message"*

bigshotklim | "dude works hard for NOUNS"

0xmonografia | "Hopefully, Volky's not the last addition to the repo. I'm happy to collaborate on ideas and UX/UI design work to improve nouns dot wtf."

AGAINST - 4 VOTES

ABSTAINS - 9 VOTES

FOR 127 VOTES

AGAINST 0 VOTES

ABSTAIN 0 VOTES

The proposal lacks specific financial details, such as compensation amounts or a detailed budget breakdown. Additionally, the proposal references URLs and external content that are not accessible for evaluation, which are crucial for a comprehensive assessment.

Thanks volky!

Hopefully, Volky's not the last addition to the repo. I'm happy to collaborate on ideas and UX/UI design work to improve nouns dot wtf.

I am wholly for this proposal in spirit and totally against it in form.

Specifically endorsing and authorizing a single individual through a governance proposal to maintain the DUNA’s monorepo, update developer tooling (strategic technical decisions,) create guidelines for contributions (rule-setting authority,) integrate the contributions of others (gatekeeping function,) and make opinionated changes (with consultation only for "public-facing" ones,) to the repo seems clearly to extend beyond beyond simple technical/administrative tasks, to the effect of appointing the individual to perform significant entrepreneurial & decision-making efforts that will affect the success or failure of our enterprise and create a reliance upon that individual for the value being created through those efforts.

This is exacerbated by the inactivity of previous contributors with pre-DUNA repo access and their not seeking authorization through governance from the DUNA to continue their efforts.

No other members have refuted this analysis with a facts and circumstances, substance over form-based evidentiary argument. Removing the word “appoint” from the title of the proposal does not change the substance over form nature of securities law.

Given the clear and direct public guidance from the attorneys who constructed the model DUNA legislation against structuring positions in this manner, and their specific recommendation to form committees, proceeding without consulting legal advisors despite an onchain request for that advice raises serious concerns. The decision to disregard established guidance without seeking legal counsel may constitute a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as described in W.S. 17-32-118(b), or alternatively suggests that members may lack the sophistication necessary to effectively express their powers as described in the second prong of the Williamson test.

If this proposal and others like it pass, we are failing to mitigate potential harm to our DUNA and its members through the introduction of centralization risk under American securities law and weakening our ability to compliantly operate as and enjoy the limited liability shield afforded by the DUNA structure, as described by the aforementioned attorneys in their LexDAO Study session conversation found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUt8N4eMBE8 (39:35 - 44:45 & 47:10 - 52:37).

I very much appreciate Volky’s willingness to step up and perform these critical efforts and I share other members’ desire to move forward on this issue quickly, however the appropriate course of action is the formation through governance of a Monorepo Maintenance Committee with explicit membership, boundaries of authority, and decision-making protocols.

Securities law demands substance over form; promises of future decentralization mean nothing without formal structural safeguards established from inception. Following the model DUNA legislation author’s prescribed committee structure will enable necessary maintenance and development without creating unnecessary centralization risk that threatens our limited liability shield.