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
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Not open for further replies.
Paul, good points on Guide ANOs voting.

Regarding the discussion happening on the document, it got very messy last time and all the discussions disappear when resolved. Having people discussing the document in two different places didn't work well and made it difficult to follow what was going on and what consensus was formed, if any. It's better if you can quote sections of the document into the thread here so we can hash it out.
I would like to echo @PaulSnow 's comments above re trying to exclude guide's voting.

I lean toward a strategy of distributing standing wide enough that centralization-based gaming becomes infeasible (ie a party voting for something with conflict of interest doesnt matter because standing is so distributed).

Then we can simplify everything to just be, on any vote, the sum of the total standing in the ecosystem that is voting.

-This is far easier to code into an on-chain solution
-And this is far easier to understand, meaning we start closing off gaming via knowledge of the voting system itself (We wan't people to be able to spend as little time as possible learning about our governance systems to be able to participate in them on a level playing field.
One last suggestion.

We can continue with how we do things now: Design the system to be future-compatible with what I suggest above, but because currently we aren't distributed enough to make that work, just have guides or guide applicants be expected to recuse themselves when the community deems that necessary. A guide-applicant refusing to recuse themselves when the other applicants are, and the community desires that, surely takes the bite out of that conflict-of-interest attack vector simply by the massive loss in support/standing from the community in doing so?


Timed Discussion Bot
The final poll is available for Guides to vote on now for 3 days. If Guides pass the vote with 4 "Yes" votes then ANOs will be able to vote. If Guides fail to pass, there will be no further action.
Not open for further replies.