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 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?


Have not voted

Guides Nic R


  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#32
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Document Ratification/Amendment 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.
 
Secured
#33
Thanks everyone for your input here. I’d be in favor of an annual review at time of original guide election. I am curious about how the language from Governance Doc 001, article 2.3.3...is being incorporated.
2.3.3
The initial set of guides will oversee a great deal of the needed infrastructure for Factom. Initially guides may not be properly supported by the Standing Parties as the Standing Parties are not yet properly formed, and we may not have the software available to allow the community to properly participate. At such time as the technology, infrastructure, and community is ready to properly execute the guide selection, the initial guides will stand down and allow guide selection via proper processes. The initial Guides will be eligible for re-election.
Thanks
 
Secured
#34
Thanks everyone for your input here. I’d be in favor of an annual review at time of original guide election. I am curious about how the language from Governance Doc 001, article 2.3.3...is being incorporated.
2.3.3
The initial set of guides will oversee a great deal of the needed infrastructure for Factom. Initially guides may not be properly supported by the Standing Parties as the Standing Parties are not yet properly formed, and we may not have the software available to allow the community to properly participate. At such time as the technology, infrastructure, and community is ready to properly execute the guide selection, the initial guides will stand down and allow guide selection via proper processes. The initial Guides will be eligible for re-election.
Thanks
Doc 001 will need to be amended once we ratify this Guide process as there are likely to be some conflicts. We can either update it to basically be redundant to the Guide process we're working on now, or we can have Section 2 of Doc 001 be fairly sparse on details and refer to this Guide process. The latter seems to be the cleaner approach but this is something to be discussed.

Is there a particular part of 2.3.3 that you're concerned isn't being implemented in the current document?
 
Secured
#35
Thanks everyone for your input here. I’d be in favor of an annual review at time of original guide election. I am curious about how the language from Governance Doc 001, article 2.3.3...is being incorporated.
2.3.3
The initial set of guides will oversee a great deal of the needed infrastructure for Factom. Initially guides may not be properly supported by the Standing Parties as the Standing Parties are not yet properly formed, and we may not have the software available to allow the community to properly participate. At such time as the technology, infrastructure, and community is ready to properly execute the guide selection, the initial guides will stand down and allow guide selection via proper processes. The initial Guides will be eligible for re-election.
Thanks
We guides are fulfilling the intent of 2.3.3 by implementing a proper framework for guide election and removal.

We initially got elected without any standing parties in place (bootstrapped). With ANOs in place as standing parties we provide an officially process for electing new guides supported by standing parties, and we also fulfill the requirement about standing down by imposing term limits which means that the initial guides will need to be re-elected 7th of April 2019.

In my mind section 2.3.3 of the governance document may be removed after this document has been ratified as the community now "(has) the technology, infrastructure to properly execute the guide selection"; i.e. standing parties, Factomize (platform) and framework (this ratified document).
 
Secured
#38
I have updated the document up for ratification based on the discussion in this thread:

- Changed from 2 votes a year to only 1 where all 5 guides are up for election at the same time.
- Changed the "language" so it defines April 7th as the term start date instead of election date.
- Added a paragraph that states that the election shall be held well in advance of April 7th to enable incoming guides to overlap with outgoing ones.
- Added a paragraph that specified that incoming guides shall be given access to all guide platforms from the day they are elected (so its available during overlapping period), and that they are allowed to attend guide meetings but not have voting rights until their term starts.
- Added a paragraph that states that current guides are responsible for hosting elections.


Please take a look at the changes and provide input as soon as convenient. This discussion phase will end in 3 days (5th of January) and voting will commence.

Cheers
Tor
 
Secured
#39
You guys have view only on. Not sure if that's on purpose or not but I'll make suggestions here.

1. Section 2.2 still has language for two elections.

2. 3.1.4.2.1 - I'd suggest changing to to, "The thread title will only contain the name of their Guide entity". I'd also suggest adding announcement language regarding educating that Guides should be legal entities, not single individuals AND add to 3.1.4.2.2 that they should state who from their legal entity will represent that entity.

3. 3.1.6 "practicable" > "practical"
 
Secured
#41
4. In multiple places you have language such as "and voted on by non-Guide ANOs". Technically, this would allow entities such as TFA and BIF to vote as they are non-Guide ANOs. I think the language should be changed to, "and voted on by ANOs that do not have a person who represents a Guide entity as a member".

5. 4.1.2 "The Removal Thread shall be public but can only be posted by and voted on by non-Guide ANOs." -- should this be "The Removal Thread shall be public but can only be posted IN and voted on by non-Guide ANOs." ?

6. 4.1.3 -- Add an abstain option.

7. Add a 4.2.3 "Section three 'Guide Election Process' of this document will be initiated by remaining Guides within 72 hours."
 
Secured
#42
You guys have view only on. Not sure if that's on purpose or not but I'll make suggestions here.

1. Section 2.2 still has language for two elections.
Thanks. I have amended it.

2. 3.1.4.2.1 - I'd suggest changing to to, "The thread title will only contain the name of their Guide entity".
Amended.

I'd also suggest adding announcement language regarding educating that Guides should be legal entities, not single individuals AND add to 3.1.4.2.2 that they should state who from their legal entity will represent that entity.
Added. Please verify that this is in line with your suggestion.

3. 3.1.6 "practicable" > "practical"
oops!
 
Secured
#44
Thank you for posting this thread.

This is a vital role for the protocol and undoubtedly the guides are doing a great job and are terrific examples to the rest of the community.

My very first observation is to ask a question about the title of the document. The title is “Guide Removal and Election Processes” DOC 100. Interestingly in Sam’s introduction to the thread he described it as “Guide Election and Removal Processes” which is a much more positive approach – we need and value good guides, the challenge is primarily to attract and retain them!

I see that most of the discussion has been about the time period guides serve for and how often elections are held. Without wanting to completely revisit the subject I wonder whether 2 elections per year would be an approach which lets guides serve a shorter term if they wanted to and enable a mid year review of guide performance? I suspect that for long serving guides this would be just a confirmation, however it would create an opportunity for the community to ask questions and confirm their support for the guides concerned.
 
Secured
#46
Thank you for posting this thread.

This is a vital role for the protocol and undoubtedly the guides are doing a great job and are terrific examples to the rest of the community.

My very first observation is to ask a question about the title of the document. The title is “Guide Removal and Election Processes” DOC 100. Interestingly in Sam’s introduction to the thread he described it as “Guide Election and Removal Processes” which is a much more positive approach – we need and value good guides, the challenge is primarily to attract and retain them!
The name of the document is indeed supposed to be "Guide Election and Removal Processes" and not the other way around. I believe it's something we overlooked when we merged the two processes (election and removal) into one document. Thanks!

Thank you for posting this thread.
I see that most of the discussion has been about the time period guides serve for and how often elections are held. Without wanting to completely revisit the subject I wonder whether 2 elections per year would be an approach which lets guides serve a shorter term if they wanted to and enable a mid year review of guide performance? I suspect that for long serving guides this would be just a confirmation, however it would create an opportunity for the community to ask questions and confirm their support for the guides concerned.
I guess what you are saying is that you'd prefer terms to be 6 months and not 1 year, and go with 2 elections every year where all guides are up for election at the same time?

I guess the percieved positive elements of doing it this way would be:
- Provides two yearly opportunities for prospective guides to apply.
- Provides the community with a way to perform a mid year review of guide performance.

On the other hand (negative aspects):
- Doubles the amount of overhead for both the guides and the larger community. I wrote about this in an earlier post. The guide elections might not seem like a whole lot of administrative work, but with all that is going on with grant rounds, ANO application rounds, governance developmene etc. its not trivial. In addition to the actual work the standing parties will have to do in regards of "vetting" the candidates by asking questions etc, you'll also have 3-5 general announcements from the guides regarding the election round, which also adds to the amounts of "pings" and notifications on Discord the standing parties are subjected to.

- When accounting for the fact that we aim for 1 month overlap between being elected and taking on the position, and that the guide election process will be around a month long (2 week submission period, 1 week discussion period, 1 week voting period (considering you might need to do multiple votes if there is a tie) you'll end up with starting a new guide application round only 4 months after the previous guide term started.

- Being a guide, learning the ropes and being able to actively participate in a good fashion will take some time to get right... 4 months might not be enough time for the guide to get settled in and the community to properly evaluate how they are performing.

- Provides less initial financial security for the newly elected guides.
This might sound a bit strange; but keep in mind that the financial cost and hours required to set up a crypto company as a legal entity is very extensive. As an example, I have spent more than 5k EUR on my guide entity company so far and I'd guess around 70-100 hours on administrative work just to get it off the ground. I have attended courses by the tax authority, spent hours on the phone with them, spoken to multiple different accounting firms to have them handle my taxes (I had to ask 5+ before anyone accepted me), applied with more than 10 banks for banking services (they all said no due to me describing I was dealing in crypto. In the end I found one that didn't explicitly ask about crypto and got accepted), consulted with a tax laywer and written multiple letters to the tax authority to figure out if I have to pay VAT or not on my company income (which might come on top of the 50% company/dividends tax)... So; this is all the stuff a prospective guide will have to deal with in addition to actually performing the guide work...

So; my point is that recouping the initial company setup costs might itself take almost half a year (considering taxes and the variable guide pay)... And thus having only 6 month terms might put a lot of people off who would otherwise make excellent guides...

I am in no way advocating for us to keep "useless guides" who it turns out are not up for the job or working hard for the community; but I think the above should be taken into consideration when deciding on terms as to not make the position too unattractive.

A guide can also step down before the term is up and a special election held, or removed by the community via the proposed process in this document... So, to sum it up - my personal preference would be for 1 year terms (mainly due to the overhead associated with two elections), but I am more than willing to let consensus decide.


3.3.3.1 All ANOs except for Guides will be allowed to vote.

I mentioned this earlier though we got sidetracked with other discussions. This needs to be clarified. Guides are not ANOs so this does not really make sense.
This also applies to the removal portion of the document: "4.1.8 If 51% of the non-Guide ANOs vote yes (...)"
I believe this way of putting it should also be used in 3.3.3.1 to clarify.


This one is though a bit tricky, as you can have two type of guide entities:
1) A guide entity which is also an ANO (Canonical ledgers, Factom Inc., DBGrow)
2) A guide entity which is not an ANO (Centis BV & The 42ND Factoid AS).

The latter type of guide entity can further be broken down into two sub-types:
2a) A guide entity where the guide representative is a director/has a public role in an ANO (example. I'm a director in The Factoid Authority).
2b) A guide entity where the guide representative does NOT have a director/public role in an ANO (none as of this time).

The intention behind the text, IIRC, was to limit category 1-guides from voting in elections, but allow 2a/2b to vote, as to not limit the affiliated ANO to participate in governance.

Example: I as a director in TFA only have 1/5th voting rights in the that company, and TFA as a whole might want to vote against me (representing a another company) becoming a guide, or even vote to have my guide entity removed for a host of different reasons (legal or others), and as such they should not be limited to do so.

This document is however just a draft and I would very much like to hear everyones opinions about how this aspect should be handled.
 
Secured
#47
4. In multiple places you have language such as "and voted on by non-Guide ANOs". Technically, this would allow entities such as TFA and BIF to vote as they are non-Guide ANOs. I think the language should be changed to, "and voted on by ANOs that do not have a person who represents a Guide entity as a member".

5. 4.1.2 "The Removal Thread shall be public but can only be posted by and voted on by non-Guide ANOs." -- should this be "The Removal Thread shall be public but can only be posted IN and voted on by non-Guide ANOs." ?

6. 4.1.3 -- Add an abstain option.

7. Add a 4.2.3 "Section three 'Guide Election Process' of this document will be initiated by remaining Guides within 72 hours."
4. Tor discussed this above but we need to hear from the community what they feel is the appropriate approach.

5. We want Guides to be able to defend themselves so they need to be able to post in the thread. See 4.1.5.

6. I agree. Added.

7. I added this.
 
Secured
#48
The name of the document is indeed supposed to be "Guide Election and Removal Processes" and not the other way around. I believe it's something we overlooked when we merged the two processes (election and removal) into one document. Thanks!

I guess what you are saying is that you'd prefer terms to be 6 months and not 1 year, and go with 2 elections every year where all guides are up for election at the same time?

I guess the percieved positive elements of doing it this way would be:
- Provides two yearly opportunities for prospective guides to apply.
- Provides the community with a way to perform a mid year review of guide performance.

On the other hand (negative aspects):
- Doubles the amount of overhead for both the guides and the larger community. I wrote about this in an earlier post. The guide elections might not seem like a whole lot of administrative work, but with all that is going on with grant rounds, ANO application rounds, governance developmene etc. its not trivial. In addition to the actual work the standing parties will have to do in regards of "vetting" the candidates by asking questions etc, you'll also have 3-5 general announcements from the guides regarding the election round, which also adds to the amounts of "pings" and notifications on Discord the standing parties are subjected to.

- When accounting for the fact that we aim for 1 month overlap between being elected and taking on the position, and that the guide election process will be around a month long (2 week submission period, 1 week discussion period, 1 week voting period (considering you might need to do multiple votes if there is a tie) you'll end up with starting a new guide application round only 4 months after the previous guide term started.

- Being a guide, learning the ropes and being able to actively participate in a good fashion will take some time to get right... 4 months might not be enough time for the guide to get settled in and the community to properly evaluate how they are performing.

- Provides less initial financial security for the newly elected guides.
This might sound a bit strange; but keep in mind that the financial cost and hours required to set up a crypto company as a legal entity is very extensive. As an example, I have spent more than 5k EUR on my guide entity company so far and I'd guess around 70-100 hours on administrative work just to get it off the ground. I have attended courses by the tax authority, spent hours on the phone with them, spoken to multiple different accounting firms to have them handle my taxes (I had to ask 5+ before anyone accepted me), applied with more than 10 banks for banking services (they all said no due to me describing I was dealing in crypto. In the end I found one that didn't explicitly ask about crypto and got accepted), consulted with a tax laywer and written multiple letters to the tax authority to figure out if I have to pay VAT or not on my company income (which might come on top of the 50% company/dividends tax)... So; this is all the stuff a prospective guide will have to deal with in addition to actually performing the guide work...

So; my point is that recouping the initial company setup costs might itself take almost half a year (considering taxes and the variable guide pay)... And thus having only 6 month terms might put a lot of people off who would otherwise make excellent guides...

I am in no way advocating for us to keep "useless guides" who it turns out are not up for the job or working hard for the community; but I think the above should be taken into consideration when deciding on terms as to not make the position too unattractive.

A guide can also step down before the term is up and a special election held, or removed by the community via the proposed process in this document... So, to sum it up - my personal preference would be for 1 year terms (mainly due to the overhead associated with two elections), but I am more than willing to let consensus decide.
Tor,

Thank you for such a considered reply.

I understand the perceived negative aspects that you bring out and in fact have had the same challenges as an ANO in setting up a company with the appropriate banking, accounting and legal support. However I would be surprised if a future guide did not come from the ANO pool and as such already either have these things in place or be in a reasonably good position to establish them.

I get the concern about doubling the amount of work but the original proposal already had two elections per year, admittedly for specific numbers. I certainly do not want to create more work.

I anticipate that a guide would, after due consideration and the effort of getting established want to stay for 12 months and ideally more for continuity reasons. The objective of the approach I suggested was not to enable removal of guides but rather review and encourage...and provide the opportunity should it be required to replace guides within a six month timespan.

As for recouping the initial company setup costs a guide may incur I suggest that any contractual commitment to guides and pay be pegged for a 12 month minimum from initial start. The last thing we want to do is deter good guide applicants.

However, like you, I think the community should ultimately decide.
 
Secured
#50
This one is though a bit tricky, as you can have two type of guide entities:
1) A guide entity which is also an ANO (Canonical ledgers, Factom Inc., DBGrow)
2) A guide entity which is not an ANO (Centis BV & The 42ND Factoid AS).

The latter type of guide entity can further be broken down into two sub-types:
2a) A guide entity where the guide representative is a director/has a public role in an ANO (example. I'm a director in The Factoid Authority).
2b) A guide entity where the guide representative does NOT have a director/public role in an ANO (none as of this time).

The intention behind the text, IIRC, was to limit category 1-guides from voting in elections, but allow 2a/2b to vote, as to not limit the affiliated ANO to participate in governance.

Example: I as a director in TFA only have 1/5th voting rights in the that company, and TFA as a whole might want to vote against me (representing a another company) becoming a guide, or even vote to have my guide entity removed for a host of different reasons (legal or others), and as such they should not be limited to do so.
So, to simplify this, TFA would be allowed to vote. but the 42nd Factoid would not?

I agree with that position. As things currently stand, we could say that only ANOs are allowed to vote. That immediately fixes the problem. On the other hand, that does not future proof the document at all, which is perhaps a wider problem here. I believe we should put things in terms of 'standing parties' rather than ANOs, because that allows us to introduce more standing parties into the ecosystem without needing to come back and amend these documents.

So my suggestion would be to phrase it like: "All standing parties will be eligible to vote, except for Guides".
 
Secured
#51
Thank you for these detailed responses.

I am not sure I agree with this last point.
The concern was to make sure ANO with a person representing a guide entity could not participate in the vote.
It is basically a conflict of interest, even with only 1/5 of the shares. Shares do not represent executive power so it is not really about shares but more about decision power you have in the organization. To leverage your example @Tor if you only have shares without any decisional power in TFA for me it is fine for TFA to participate in the vote - the contrary is not true however [you voting for a process including TFA as your guide entity has executive power and financial interest in TFA]).

1-year-term is the good option IMO.

I understand the concern about 2 votes per year but still think it is a good way to get continuity between guides. No need for overlap in this case. And you don't need to wait for one year before onboarding highly motivated people.
But I am not a guide and certainly underestimate the amount of work so I will trust your final decision on this point as long as there is overlap at least (as you already proposed).
 
Secured
#54
Tor,

Thank you for such a considered reply.

I understand the perceived negative aspects that you bring out and in fact have had the same challenges as an ANO in setting up a company with the appropriate banking, accounting and legal support. However I would be surprised if a future guide did not come from the ANO pool and as such already either have these things in place or be in a reasonably good position to establish them.
I think there is absolutely a possibility for non-ANOs becoming guides (I've seen interest from several already). I'm a bit uneasy about using ANO legal entities for guide work, and this is something I think we should discourage in the future. There was also some feedback from legal (I can't remember who or where) which suggested that the current guides operating via ANO entities should consider moving the guide-operation to a separate entity...

So I think and hope that future guides will set up new entities for their guide work. Some of them might already be in a position to do this easier than when starting from scratch, but I know (from experience) that there will be significant costs and man-hours involved nevertheless.

The discussion is however really about 6 or 12 month terms, and I've created an unofficial poll in Discord to let the standing parties weigh in on the options. I'll let the vote decide what goes into the final document for ratification.

So, to simplify this, TFA would be allowed to vote. but the 42nd Factoid would not?

I agree with that position. As things currently stand, we could say that only ANOs are allowed to vote. That immediately fixes the problem. On the other hand, that does not future proof the document at all, which is perhaps a wider problem here. I believe we should put things in terms of 'standing parties' rather than ANOs, because that allows us to introduce more standing parties into the ecosystem without needing to come back and amend these documents.
I and @Samuel Vanderwaal spent quite a lot of time discussing ANO vs Standing parties in the document, and in the end decided on going with ANOs.

We absolutely see the benefit in creating a document that does not need to be updated when we change the standing party composition in the future, but there are also some issues with this approach at this stage. This is mainly related to the fact that the type of implementation of future standing parties is still up in the air, and we might make ourselves vulnerable to unintended consequences by providing too broad a framework.

A quick and dirty example:
1) We describe in the Guide election/removal document that "standing parties except guides" are allowed to vote.
2) Later we introduce FCT-holders as a standing party without a minimum limit of FCT-required to constitute a standing party, which leads to:
3) Every FCT-address with 1 FCT in it would have a vote with the same weight as an ANO.

Of course you could take this into consideration when expanding the standing parties; but that would mean that you put limits on how to implement the standing parties due to how you wrote a previous document - which is really not optimal.

We had the same discussion when creating the ANO-removal document, and that one also does not reference "standing parties" but only ANOs for this same reason.

So, to sum it up; we figured that it would be better to be consistent between the documents and specify "ANOs" (and not "standing parties") for now, and in the future when we need to change it we can do all the relevant documents at the same time, amending them in the same way - so the combined workload for the ANOs is kept at a minimum (they can vote on multiple documents at the same time).

So my suggestion would be to phrase it like: "All standing parties will be eligible to vote, except for Guides".
Ref what I wrote above I think we should go with ANOs instead of "standing parties" for now.
I think the way you formulated it might still be open for interpretation, as someone could argue that Canonical Ledgers should be able to vote as an ANO (even if it is also a guide entity), due to the fact that it is voting as an ANO and not a guide.

I also noticed that @Matthias Fortin does not agree with a the ANO affiliated with a type 2a guide entity being allowed to vote. I do not have strong opinions in this regards, except for the fact that I don't think we should limit the affiliated ANOs ability to vote against its member in an election or removal motion.

If we do this, we need to make sure that ANOs with candidates for the Guide role cannot vote either, otherwise it would be unfair.
Yes, I mentioned this briefly in my previous reply. The same text should go in both 3.3.3.1 and 4.1.8 to ensure it covers both elections and removal votes.

Thank you for these detailed responses.

I am not sure I agree with this last point.
The concern was to make sure ANO with a person representing a guide entity could not participate in the vote.
It is basically a conflict of interest, even with only 1/5 of the shares. Shares do not represent executive power so it is not really about shares but more about decision power you have in the organization. To leverage your example @Tor if you only have shares without any decisional power in TFA for me it is fine for TFA to participate in the vote - the contrary is not true however [you voting for a process including TFA as your guide entity has executive power and financial interest in TFA]).
Ok, so what you are saying is that a type 2a guide entity (referenced in the latter half of post #46 in this discussion) should not be able to vote either?

I would be fine with that as I'm not married to the idea of providing them a vote (it was mainly to enable them to vote against a member applying to be a guide and to enable them to vote for a removal action).

Suggestion:::
We amend the following in 3.3.3.1:
"All ANOs except for Guides will be allowed to vote. "
TO:
"All ANOs are eligible to vote, except for;
- ANOs that are also currently functioning as a Factom guide, and;
- ANOs where the candidate guide entity (or the Guide entity representative) holds an executive function (board member, director etc.) in another ANO."

Similar language would also be included in paragraph 4.1.8 (removal vote).

Thoughts?
 
Secured
#56
Ok, so what you are saying is that a type 2a guide entity (referenced in the latter half of post #46 in this discussion) should not be able to vote either?

I would be fine with that as I'm not married to the idea of providing them a vote (it was mainly to enable them to vote against a member applying to be a guide and to enable them to vote for a removal action).

Suggestion:::
We amend the following in 3.3.3.1:
"All ANOs except for Guides will be allowed to vote. "
TO:
"All ANOs are eligible to vote, except for;
- ANOs that are also currently functioning as a Factom guide, and;
- ANOs where the candidate guide entity (or the Guide entity representative) holds an executive function (board member, director etc.) in another ANO."

Similar language would also be included in paragraph 4.1.8 (removal vote).
Yes that's what I meant. Thanks for your answer.

I am also in favor of this language. The only thing is it looks like the very last words ("in another ANO") are superfluous or am I wrong?
 
Secured
#57
Yes that's what I meant. Thanks for your answer.

I am also in favor of this language. The only thing is it looks like the very last words ("in another ANO") are superfluous or am I wrong?
Thanks for the reply - and I believe you are right. :)

Would this text be more suitable? Anyone else wants to take a stab at it?

"All ANOs are eligible to vote, except for;
- ANOs that are also currently functioning as a Factom guide, and;
- ANOs where the candidate guide entity/guide entity representative holds an executive function.
Note: "Executive function" in this regard refers to being a board member, director, company representative or employee.
 
Secured
#58
Most of this document will require heavy revision with onchain voting, and even on chain discussion and reputation. Otherwise, it seems a bit detailed to me, but not horrible.

"All ANOs except for Guides will be allowed to vote. " Not exactly sure why would we be overly worried about a guide's ANO voting for themselves?

Also, frequent elections are really painful on the community. Everyone has their "real" job or focus, and in this ecosystem I hope that isn't politics and elections. If people are really deploying solutions for data integrity, automation, identity, and applications on Factom, or pushing the protocol forward with better technology, improvements on performance and scale.... If so, then elections become an interruption and a distraction. We shouldn't do them too often.
 
Secured
#59
"All ANOs except for Guides will be allowed to vote. "

Keep in mind, if 5 guilde are also ANOs, and 6 ANOs decide to run for Guide, that means 11 ANOs out of 26 (currently) are not allowed to vote, while any one of these ANOs only has a "conflict" (if that is even true) on 1 out of the 5 guide positions being decided. Even as we move to 65 ANOs and fold in other standing parties, this is a great portion of the most informed that are sidelined from the decision.

The uninvolved at the guide level, and often the people with the least insight into the effectiveness of Guides become the biggest decision makers.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.