Doc 005 - ANO Election and Demotion System - Change required

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions BlockVenture Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Crypto Logic Crypto Logic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech LayerTech Mike Buckingham Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

What changes to Doc005 should be pursued?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes DBGrow DBGrow Factomize Factomize

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mike Buckingham

Cube3
Website Committee
Governance Working Group
Whilst the Governance Working Group were revising Doc 0005 to account for the Guide removal changes there was a request to make other changes related to the Minimum Standing Level (from 40% to 50%) and the Standing Party Voting Frequency (from 60 days to 90 days). These were worked on, but we decided to strictly limit the batch to Guide removal changes.

We have just started to revise Doc 005 to again present these proposed changes and make it more versatile. However, we noticed that due to an administrative oversight the version with these other changes included had already been put forward and ratified during the latest batch amendment.

Given that these changes were not made explicit to the Standing Parties and two ANOs have since moved past the Minimum Standing Level of 50%, we now need to act. To keep the effects limited and fair the Governance Working Group propose:

1. Keep the currently ratified doc 005 with a 50% minimum required standing, and once per 90 day Standing Party Vote Frequency which was effective as of May 8
2. Reverse these changes so that the Minimum Standing Level reverts to 40% and the Standing Party Vote Frequency reverts to once per 60 days, which will need a new ratification.

Note - edited to enable a vote on 2 specific options. Original options shown below with strike through.

Ultimately it is the standing parties that make this decision. Please vote for which of these actions you would prefer.


1) To submit the revised Doc 005 with its new structure and these changes included and if approved initiate the Improvement Window of 90 days for any affected ANOs.

There are two alternatives:

2) Stay with the approved version and implement the changes in it, meaning that the effects count from May 8.
3) Resubmit a version of Doc005 with guide related changes only and moving back to 40% standing and a 60 day window.
 
Last edited:

Chappie

Factomize Bot
This thread is a Major Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Only ANOs may take part in this discussion and vote. Unless this discussion is ended early or extended, it will end in 8 days after which a vote may take place. After 18 hours from the start of the thread or any point up until 24 hours are left in the discussion, you can make a motion to end the discussion immediately or extend the discussion beyond it's initial time frame by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. If someone "seconds" your motion, a poll will take place and if a majority of voters vote yes by the time the discussion is scheduled to end, the time period will be extended for 72 hours.
 

WB

Factoshi
Exchange Working Group
Governance Working Group
Firstly, I apologize on behalf of the GWG for not having spotted this. It was really as simple as not updating the doc link in the summaries to the correct version that still kept the 40% minimum standing level..

We didn't spot this.

My personal preference for a solution would be #1, where we put a revised doc 005 up and wait to impose any improvement period until re-ratification.
 

Tor Paulsen

The Factoid Authority
As long as the batch update process specifically specifies that the ratification is nullified if the suggestions were not mentioned during the voting process my take is that the ratified documents stand. The standing parties are not excused from reading the actual documents when voting, and if they vote in favor they do so on the document's own merits and not based on a description by the entity putting it up for ratification.

I do however suggest that we make an informal poll asking the standing parties what they prefer. If they want to change it back to 40% a new amendment is suggested which changes it back (and bumps the version number + 0.1), and if they don't want to change it back... Well lets implement the change on Factomize valid from May 8th as the current version of Doc 005 dictates.
 

WB

Factoshi
Exchange Working Group
Governance Working Group
As long as the batch update process specifically specifies that the ratification is nullified if the suggestions were not mentioned during the voting process my take is that the ratified documents stand. The standing parties are not excused from reading the actual documents when voting, and if they vote in favor they do so on the document's own merits and not based on a description by the entity putting it up for ratification.
Yeah there's no provision that the entire ratification is nullified for this scenario. So if ANOs choose to, it can stand and we stick with the 50% as of May 8.
 

Miguel Proulx

Stamp-IT
As long as the batch update process specifically specifies that the ratification is nullified if the suggestions were not mentioned during the voting process my take is that the ratified documents stand. The standing parties are not excused from reading the actual documents when voting, and if they vote in favor they do so on the document's own merits and not based on a description by the entity putting it up for ratification.
While I understand this, I think this sets a pretty bad precedent, no? The vote was for the removal of guides and some changes were included along the way that have pretty big ramification for some. If we cannot trust our working group/leaders to only push the documents that contains the discussed changes and that every party has to double check every changed commas, periods, and what not in every document, we are not going to see the light.
 

Mike Buckingham

Cube3
Website Committee
Governance Working Group
While I understand this, I think this sets a pretty bad precedent, no? The vote was for the removal of guides and some changes were included along the way that have pretty big ramification for some. If we cannot trust our working group/leaders to only push the documents that contains the discussed changes and that every party has to double check every changed commas, periods, and what not in every document, we are not going to see the light.
I fully appreciate your concern, whilst Tor makes a very good point about the responsibility the Standing parties have to read the Docs up for ratification, I also think that the Governance Working Group have a responsibility to work on governance as transparently, thoroughly and diligently as possible. In this instance there was a simple mistake in which a document link was wrong. If you are upset about this I fully understand and can assure you that the Working Group are also very concerned. We have flagged it up as soon as we were aware of it and will work to resolve it as fairly as possible. On this basis I think the only precedent this constitutes is that if there is anything wrong we will identify it as best we can, as early as we can and fix it. That does not absolve us from not making the error in the first place though and for that we apologise.
 
Last edited:

Fillip H.

Factomize
For the record, it is not an easy task to back-date threshold changes. If I make a change to the threshold, it will start the 90 day period when the scheduled task / cron runs.

That's not to say it's impossible, but it would be preferable if this is not required.

Let me know if I should make the necessary changes to the settings to update the thresholds.
 

David Kuiper

Bedrock Solutions
Can we create a rule that all document modifications must be listed in the forum post or else those changes do not get ratified? It is a waste of time for all of us to compare every word in every document. It will be better if we only need to check the sections listed in the post.
 

WB

Factoshi
Exchange Working Group
Governance Working Group
Can we create a rule that all document modifications must be listed in the forum post or else those changes do not get ratified? It is a waste of time for all of us to compare every word in every document. It will be better if we only need to check the sections listed in the post.
The process is quite tedious right now, admittedly.

David Chapman once proposed an enhancement that I think would help: "I will be proposing that Factomize create a system for easily editing governance on a line by line basis AND for votes to be able to approve (or not) each of those. That way it's not an all or nothing system like it is currently and MUCH more efficient."

For larger amendments, I think needing to vote on each line would be tedious too, but I like the idea in principle.

Sadly he's gone, and I don't think they had a concept lying around.
 
Last edited:

Chappie

Factomize Bot
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Major Discussion by an additional 72 hours or end this conversation by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. This option will end when there are 24 hours left in the discussion.
 

Fillip H.

Factomize
I'll put this out there as a suggestion.

What if we put the documents into a GitHub repository? It has great difference tools, and we can create pull requests, vote on them, then merge them as they are approved?

Just a thought.
This creates centralisation, as it would require trusting one particular party to control the act of merging the PRs. It would make more sense for me to build a new add-on here that would see documents transformed into threads, with a new feature that allows anyone to suggest an amendment.

The flow would be something like:

1. Click "Propose amendment"
1a. An interface similar to the current post editing interface appears
1b. Document is locked from further amendments until the process is complete

2. User wants to save a draft
2a. User clicks "Save draft"
2b. Gets stored in the draft system similar to draft grant round votes

3. User wants to submit the proposal
3a. User clicks "Submit proposal"
3b. The proposal is stored in the database and a new voting thread is automatically generated
3c The diff between the original document and the amended document is displayed inline, similar to the post editing history and/or the template merge viewer, depending on what makes more sense in implementation

4. Vote passes
4a. The original document thread's post contents is replaced with the amended text
4b. The document is unlocked and further amendments may be proposed

5. Vote fails
5a. The amendment is flagged as "failed"
5b. The document is unlocked and further amendments may be proposed
 

WB

Factoshi
Exchange Working Group
Governance Working Group
I'll put this out there as a suggestion.

What if we put the documents into a GitHub repository? It has great difference tools, and we can create pull requests, vote on them, then merge them as they are approved?

Just a thought.
@Keith Pincombe suggested this a while back. We were going to look into it after the guide removal. I agree that difference tools are very needed.

I'm also a big fan of what @Fillip H. just proposed. Though Github should definitely be a defined fall-back if automation should fail us,
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Mike Buckingham has made a motion to end the discussion early. If someone seconds this motion by selecting the button below, a vote on the motion will start.

A majority voting yay will pass the motion and the discussion will end immediately. This motion will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or a motion to end the discussion is passed by a majority.
 

Mike Buckingham

Cube3
Website Committee
Governance Working Group
I’d like to thank everyone for their constructive inputs to this discussion. There have been some great suggestions which will be followed up. One suggestion that the Governance Working Group would like to act on now is to simplify the voting options. Given that the discussion appears to be drawing to a close we propose to shorten the discussion period, hence the motion to end the discussion early, and enable a vote on 2 specific options:

1. Keep the currently ratified doc 005 with a 50% minimum required standing, and once per 90 day Standing Party Vote Frequency which was effective as of May 8
2. Reverse these changes so that the Minimum Standing Level reverts to 40% and the Standing Party Vote Frequency reverts to once per 60 days, which will need a new ratification.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Miguel Proulx has seconded the motion to end the discussion early.

A motion is now active at the top of this thread to vote if you want to end the discussion early and move on the next phase. A majority voting yes will pass the motion and the discussion will be closed immediately. This vote will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or another motion is passed.
 

Cole

BlockVenture
1) To submit the revised Doc 005 with its new structure and these changes included and if approved initiate the Improvement Window of 90 days for any affected ANOs.

We're okay with passing proposal one. From our perspective, increasing the Minimum Standing Level from 40% to 50% is imperative for the efficacy of Factom’s ANO governance model. That being said, we’d like to see some consensus around this.

I'll gladly second the motion to end the discussion early, that way we can hold a vote on the two options
 
  • Like
Reactions: WB

David Kuiper

Bedrock Solutions
Of the two options, I strongly feel we should go with option 2 and revert the changes that none of the standing parties knowingly voted on. Let's fix our mistake. This isn't to say I'm against those changes, I would still vote for them, but how they were ratified is not acceptable.

How about we have a vote with two options, either re-affirm or revert the changes?
 

Matthias Fortin

HashnStore
It makes me feel like we are dealing with the traditional "Spirit" VS "Letter" of the law debate.

I am clearly on the side of the "Spirit". As said by Miguel it would set a bad precedent. Let us discourage any future legislative Trojan Horse wether voluntary or not. So I am more inclined to follow option 2.
Option 2 is not considering the current ratified document nullified. It clearly needs to follow a new ratification process to reverse these changes.

If we then consider that the 2 above changes are relevant, I think we should dedicate a debate and a final vote on it.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
The motion to end the discussion has passed.

Discussion has ended and the final vote is now open. It will last for 72 hours. Please take the time to vote accordingly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top