Ratified Doc 100 - Guide Election and Removal Process

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed BI Foundation BI Foundation Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers 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 HashnStore HashnStore Julian Fletcher-Taylor LUCIAP LUCIAP LayerTech Matter of Fact Matter of Fact Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Niels Klomp Prestige IT Prestige IT RewardChain RewardChain Samuel Vanderwaal Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority Tor Paulsen VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed Syncroblock Syncroblock

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?


All votes are in

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#1
Before the holidays we had a discussion about Guide processes (election and removal) and a draft document was generated by the community. We reworked it a little to include suggestions from the initial discussion and polished it up, including having legal take a look at it. The main changes were:
  • Guides are disallowed from voting for or against other guides.
  • ANOs are specified as the voting Standing Party for Guide Elections and removals (will be expanded to other standing parties when those become available).
  • Guide terms are specified at 1 year (re-election possible).
  • To reduce overhead, Guide elections are to be held twice a year, once in April for three positions and once in November for two positions.
This starts an eight day Major Timed Discussion where we can make additional changes to the document and discuss any issues community members have regarding it. The discussion will culminate in a ratification vote on the document as described in Doc 002 (administration of community documents).

Please review the document carefully and provide any feedback you have directly in the discussion thread. Once there's a consensus around a particular change or addition we will add it to the document.

Tor and Sam
Factom Guides
 
Last edited:

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#2
This thread is a Document Ratification/Amendment Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Guides and 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 will 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 which requires a majority of Standing Parties to vote one way or the other.

At the end of the discussion period, Guides will vote first and 4 must vote yes otherwise the process ends. If 4 do vote yes, ANOs then vote and if 60% vote yes, the document is successfully ratified or amended.
 
Secured
#3
2.2. Guide elections will happen twice a year: on April 7th where three Guides will be up for election, and November 28th where two Guides will be up for election.
Why stagger terms like this, and how do we decide who of the current guides will be up for election when?

3.1.1 A temporary “Guide Candidates” subforum will be created on the community forum.
Why temporary? Shouldn't we keep everything in the public domain so that it can be revisited at a later date? Also, how do you feel about the indefinite creation of new subforums, @David Chapman?

3.1.3.1 All ANOs except for Guides will be allowed to vote.
This needs some clarification. Do you mean that Guide ANOs cannot vote? Or should you have written 'All standing parties'?

If it is the former, it would seem unfair to prevent incumbent Guide ANOs from voting whilst allowing new candidate ANOs to vote. If the assumption is that Guides up for election are demoted prior to the election (and therefore can vote for themselves), then that needs to be stated in the document.
 
Secured
#4
Why stagger terms like this, and how do we decide who of the current guides will be up for election when?
I believe April 7th is when the original 3 Guides (Tor, Niels, and Brian) were elected and November 28th was Sam and Julian.

Why temporary? Shouldn't we keep everything in the public domain so that it can be revisited at a later date? Also, how do you feel about the indefinite creation of new subforums
We can create an "Archive" subforum which this subforum is moved into and subforums like https://factomize.com/forums/factom/ANO-Selections/ are moved into. They will become subforums of the archive.
 
Secured
#5
I believe April 7th is when the original 3 Guides (Tor, Niels, and Brian) were elected and November 28th was Sam and Julian.
Looking at Discord, it appears that Sam and Julian were elected on the 30th of May. Delaying the end of their initial term until November would make that term 18 months.

I can't find out for certain when the other Guides were elected, but 7th of April looks right. That is less than two months earlier. I think we should simply elect all Guides at once.
 
Secured
#7
Looking at Discord, it appears that Sam and Julian were elected on the 30th of May. Delaying the end of their initial term until November would make that term 18 months.

I can't find out for certain when the other Guides were elected, but 7th of April looks right. That is less than two months earlier. I think we should simply elect all Guides at once.
The reason for staggering it is to have them offset and ensure that you don’t change up all the guides at once. It’s important to have some kind of continuity, and it also provides people who want to become guides with two occasions a year where they may apply.

The issue with Julian/Sam having 18 months turns can be alleviated (if we deem it necessary) by having all guides up for election 7th of April but having “their” guide-spots only have a 6 month term this very first time.
 
Secured
#8
Another option would be:

1. All 5 Guides go up for election May 1st (that's when the process starts)

2. New Guides officially take the position June 1st and old Guides are paid up until June 1st.

This gives the old Guides a couple of weeks to wind down their operations and to show the new Guides the ropes so that even if all five are replaced (unlikely but possible) it's not a huge deal. This is how elections tend to work here in the USA (though there's more time between election and taking office).
 
Secured
#9
Another option would be:

1. All 5 Guides go up for election May 1st (that's when the process starts)

2. New Guides officially take the position June 1st and old Guides are paid up until June 1st.

This gives the old Guides a couple of weeks to wind down their operations and to show the new Guides the ropes so that even if all five are replaced (unlikely but possible) it's not a huge deal. This is how elections tend to work here in the USA (though there's more time between election and taking office).
I agree that it is not likely that all 5 (or maybe even 4) guides gets switched up every year, and that such an (unpaid) overlap period might alleviate some of the issues with continuity. Actually I think we absolutely should describe in the document that the new guides officially take the position a month later, as they would then have the necessary time to set up a company for it (which I believe every guide should do). @Samuel Vanderwaal, do you agree?


Regarding hosting two elections a year; I believe that it is a good idea to provide people who wish to step up as a guide with two opportunities a year, instead of only one.

On the other side it doubles the amount of overhead.... I think I might have changed my mind (prefer one election a year but with the new guides officially taking the position a month later).

What does everyone else think about this? Elections yearly or twice a year?
 
Secured
#14
Ok, so far yearly has most support so if nothing changes in that regard I will update the document accordingly. I'll also add that one month from election -> taking up the position.


I reckon the document should cover what happens if a guide steps down before a year is up... Our governance kind of requires that we are 5 guides, so I think a by-election should be held immediately, and that the following term is only until May 1st independent on when it is held.
 
Secured
#15
Candidates shouldn't apply if they only want to work for 6 months. Now, things happen and THAT is understandable but if we define one year terms that is what Guides should plan to work, at a minimum.

Let's keep it simple.
1. People that could make great Guides may not want to make a year commitment. A project like ours is in completely uncharted territory. Nothing wrong with a 6 month commitment to test things out. Asking a year-long commitment could drastically reduce the pool of Guide candidates. If the goal is to have the best Guides possible, then we need to lower the commitment barrier.

2. Overhead for Guide elections is low. Way lower than grant round or ANO elections. Or even putting together a document like "ANO Removal." How much time really goes into this? Not very much.
 
Secured
#19
I think you guys are severally underestimating the continuity issue. It's not inconceivable that all five Guides leave after a year of service. In fact, that is WAY more likely that all five Guides wanting to stay. Continuity is way more important than the minimal overhead a 6 month election presents. Feel free to convince me that there's actually any real overhead with this process. I'm just not seeing it.
 
Secured
#20
I think I stand with 6 month elections.

-Guide elections are pretty darn easy to administer.
-It keeps guides in check, which is important
-It gives more opportunities for new people to run for guide, and a year is a long time in this space, we could have good candidates lose interest if they have to wait a year
-Any good guide candidate will be able to jump quickly into the job (especially once we put out a little handbook of guide processes, which we absolutely should before bringing on a new guide)

I really think this is less about the commitment of the guide (I think most of the current guides want to be a guide for quite some time, and are committed to doing so), but its more about giving outside community members the chance to jump in the ring more often in a space where a year feels like a decade.
 
Secured
#21
I think I stand with 6 month elections.

-Guide elections are pretty darn easy to administer.
-It keeps guides in check, which is important
-It gives more opportunities for new people to run for guide, and a year is a long time in this space, we could have good candidates lose interest if they have to wait a year
-Any good guide candidate will be able to jump quickly into the job (especially once we put out a little handbook of guide processes, which we absolutely should before bringing on a new guide)

I really think this is less about the commitment of the guide (I think most of the current guides want to be a guide for quite some time, and are committed to doing so), but its more about giving outside community members the chance to jump in the ring more often in a space where a year feels like a decade.
Keep in mind that the idea behind doing guide elections twice a year doesn't mean that all guides would be up for re-election.

Terms would still be 1 year, but you would select 3 in May and 2 in November.


Guide elections might be easy to administer, but it is still overhead; which I believe is the strongest argument for doing it once a year.

In addition to guide elections we'll have
- ANO elections (2 a year?)
- Grant rounds (4 every year)
- Document ratification/changes
- Further work on decentralization/governance
- Overhead related to new standing parties
- Potential network issues / higher cadence of new software releases + testing.

Even if guide elections are simple in compared to ANO-elections/grant rounds you will still need a "cycle" for it with multiple announcements (4-5?), guide's will be "campaigning", question rounds in the forums etc....

I agree with Matt that continuity is very important, and that is why the initial proposal has 2 rounds a year and not one; but after thinking about it I don't believe that many guides wants to step down every year, so I think we'll have at least 2-3 guides wishing to stay on....
 
Secured
#22
With regards to Guide terms and election cycles Tor and I discussed several options. I initially proposed staggered elections every ~2.5 months so we'd have five a year but he convinced me that would be too much overhead (and likely it would) so we proposed this solution as an alternative knowing full well the community would want to discuss it and may choose something different.

So far the different options I've seen suggested are these:

Six month terms:
  • All five Guides up for re-election every six months

One year terms:
  • All five Guides get elected together once a year
  • Three Guides elected in April and two Guides elected in November
  • Individual Guide elections staggered every 2.5 months

Did I miss any options presented? BTW, all of these options may require additional election(s) if we want to be strict about current Guides only serving a year, or serving a full year, before re-election.
 
Secured
#23
Looking at Discord, it appears that Sam and Julian were elected on the 30th of May. Delaying the end of their initial term until November would make that term 18 months.

I can't find out for certain when the other Guides were elected, but 7th of April looks right. That is less than two months earlier. I think we should simply elect all Guides at once.
April 7th was the first Townhall when the Governance Document was ratified and the original five guides chosen. I've attached the notes in case you want to take a look.
 

Attachments

Secured
#24
Thanks for this thread Tor and Sam.

IMO, the continuity argument is a good one for having 2 elections a year. With 2/3 guides in May and 2/3 guides in November it is completely compatible with the one year term. So I think most people here can actually get agreed on this methodology. Moreover, as already said it keeps people from the community motivated to participate all year long.
The only drawback is the extra work compared to only one election a year.
The second drawback is purely cosmetic: I don't like the asymmetry in such a case (a 3-guide election and then a 2-guide election). ^^
 
Secured
#25
Thanks for this thread Tor and Sam.

IMO, the continuity argument is a good one for having 2 elections a year. With 2/3 guides in May and 2/3 guides in November it is completely compatible with the one year term. So I think most people here can actually get agreed on this methodology. Moreover, as already said it keeps people from the community motivated to participate all year long.
The only drawback is the extra work compared to only one election a year.
The second drawback is purely cosmetic: I don't like the asymmetry in such a case (a 3-guide election and then a 2-guide election). ^^
I also don't like the asymmetry. What about electing 2.5 Guides each time? ;-)

Given this solution, do you feel there should be an additional election for Julian and I at the end of May to avoid us having 18 month initial terms?
 
Secured
#27
Just to clarify, you're saying we would have an election in April for the three original Guides, another one at the end of May/beginning of June for Julian and my Guide seats, and then who ever is elected or reelected in that second election would need to rerun again in November, correct? I support this approach, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
 
Secured
#29
Sam and julian ended up as guides as a result of Matt and I resigning. In such circumstances it’s not uncommon for the replacements to just finish the term of those they are replacing and then seek re-election if so desired.

Whether we choose to handle that this way this time doesn’t really matter to me but wording for how it should work in the future should be added to this doc so that election dates don’t get thrown off in the future.
 
Secured
#30
David, that's a good point and I think is the best approach. We do have some wording in the document to indicate this but perhaps it needs to be more explicit.


Section 2.2
Guide elections will happen twice a year: on April 7th where three Guides will be up for election, and November 28th where two Guides will be up for election.
Note: If a guide is elected outside of the dates above, their first term will last only to the election date when the guide position they filled would be up for election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.