Ratification Doc 101 - Removal of ANO from the Authority Set for Cause

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 Vikings Crypto Vikings 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?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Timed Discussion

Voting will end:

Secured
#1
This is the Ratification Discussion for Doc 101 - Removal of ANO from the Authority Set for Cause. At this point, the document should be fairly complete, but we can still make changes in this discussion before the ratification vote. Please review the current document carefully, including any outstanding comments or suggestions in the document, and suggest any further changes or raise concerns that would prevent you from being able to vote in support of ratification of the document.
 

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
#7
1.3 (iii) the ANO has become unresponsiveness repeatedly or for an extended period of time.

should be

(iii) the ANO has become unresponsive repeatedly or for an extended period of time.

or perhaps

(iii) the ANO has become unresponsive, either repeatedly or for an extended period of time.

maybe one more comma:

(iii) the ANO has become unresponsive, either repeatedly, or for an extended period of time.
 
Secured
#9
1.3 (iii) the ANO has become unresponsiveness repeatedly or for an extended period of time.

should be

(iii) the ANO has become unresponsive repeatedly or for an extended period of time.

or perhaps

(iii) the ANO has become unresponsive, either repeatedly or for an extended period of time.

maybe one more comma:

(iii) the ANO has become unresponsive, either repeatedly, or for an extended period of time.
Good catch. Fixed.


2.3 The Guides shall have the right to contact any party in their sole discretion to investigate.

Maybe:

2.3 The Guides shall have the right to contact, for investigative purposes, any party, at their sole reasonable discretion.
What is the substantive difference here?
 
Secured
#10
It's mostly about the dangling "to investigate" I think. It's a bit far from the action. Is the action about contacting or investigating? If it's about investigating, then:

The Guides shall have the right to investigate any party, at their sole reasonable discretion.

If it's about contacting them then:

The Guides shall have the right to contact any party, at their sole reasonable discretion.

If you want to clarify why they are contacting them, then it becomes what I wrote above.
 
Secured
#17
Factomatic would like to get this document ratified as soon as possible. However, in its current form the document does not reflect the consensus reached in the discussion thread IMO: https://factomize.com/forums/threads/ano-removal-for-cause.1149/

The text that I was under the impression will be included in the document regarding voting is the following:
a vote shall be initiated on a platform agreed upon and utilized by the Factom Community
There was no objections towards this text from any party, as far as I am aware.

This is the text we currently have:
a vote shall be initiated in the ANO Polls forum at the community forum or platform utilized by the Factom Community
I am not a native speaker, but to me it seems there is a difference between the two. In particular I would be OK with a text that says:
a vote shall be initiated:
* in the ANO Polls forum at the community forum, or
* on another platform utilized by the Factom Community
which IMO has a subtle but substantial difference to the currently proposed text. The former seems to imply that the vote shall always be initiated in an ANO Polls forum, which is located either at the community forum or on another platform. This means that there will always be the expectation that the vote will be in some "forum". The latter version is much more flexible, as it doesn't reference any type of platform in particular, and as such is closer to the originally agreed upon text in the discussion thread IMO.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Secured
#18
Factomatic would like to get this document ratified as soon as possible. However, in its current form the document does not reflect the consensus reached in the discussion thread IMO: https://factomize.com/forums/threads/ano-removal-for-cause.1149/

The text that I was under the impression will be included in the document regarding voting is the following:


There was no objections towards this text from any party, as far as I am aware.

This is the text we currently have:


I am not a native speaker, but to me it seems there is a difference between the two. In particular I would be OK with a text that says:

which IMO has a subtle but substantial difference to the currently proposed text. The former seems to imply that the vote shall always be initiated in an ANO Polls forum, which is located either at the community forum or on another platform. This means that there will always be the expectation that the vote will be in some "forum". The latter version is much more flexible, as it doesn't reference any type of platform in particular, and as such is closer to the originally agreed upon text in the discussion thread IMO.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not a native speaker either - but I read:
a vote shall be initiated in the ANO Polls forum at the community forum or platform utilized by the Factom Community
as stating it should be 1) the community forum, or 2) platform utilized by the Factom Community - I.e it allows for the community to use the forum (standalone), an on-chain solution or a forum-solution integrated with and powered by the on-chain voting protocol...

I would however support writing it like you suggested as it's even more clear that way.
 
Secured
#19
Yeah, I think some clarification from the lawyers/native speakers would be cool :) I see two different interpretations, but I'm inclined to interpret the text as the first one:

a vote shall be initiated in the ANO Polls forum (at the community forum or platform utilized by the Factom Community)
a vote shall be initiated in (the ANO Polls forum at the community forum) or (platform utilized by the Factom Community)
 
Last edited:
Secured
#20
I agree that there is some ambiguity in the statement. I am also inclined to agree with your initial interpretation, Valentin, as the second interpretation isn't good English:

a vote shall be initiated in (the ANO Polls forum at the community forum) or (platform utilized by the Factom Community)
If this is the correct interpretation, you should be able to take out one of those two statements and still have it make sense, but that does not happen:

a vote shall be initiated in (platform utilized by the Factom Community)
So yeah, I think this needs to be clarified with the intention of conveying that is can be performed on any platform utilised by the community. Good catch.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#22
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
#25
It's mostly about the dangling "to investigate" I think. It's a bit far from the action. Is the action about contacting or investigating? If it's about investigating, then:

The Guides shall have the right to investigate any party, at their sole reasonable discretion.

If it's about contacting them then:

The Guides shall have the right to contact any party, at their sole reasonable discretion.

If you want to clarify why they are contacting them, then it becomes what I wrote above.
Makes sense. I made the change.
 
Secured
#26
@Valentin Ganev, I made the change. Your wording is much clearer, I agree. Please review and make sure I did not muck it up again.

Shuang had commented on section 3.2 in the document:

Upon conclusion of the discussion, a vote shall be initiated on a platform utilized by the Factom Community. The voting period shall be three (3) days, and all the ANOs, including the Subject ANO, are eligible to vote. For the removal motion to pass, there shall be an ANO quorum (the number of the voting ANOs over the total number of the ANOs) of three-fifths (3/5) and an affirmative vote by three-fifths (3/5) of the voting ANOs.
Shuang Leng said:
This should be debated and decided by the community. We did not include the quorum requirement initially considering the voter turnout may be low in future.
I think this quorum is reasonable as we want these kinds of decisions to have the legitimacy of a strong quorum, but I want others' opinions.
 
Secured
#29
Oh, wait. I misread that. I thought we needed at least 60% of the total, not the participating ANOs to agree on that, but it's not the case. I would actually be inclined to have a considerably higher quorum in such case. Maybe something like 85%? This would ensure that together with a 60% vote, we still get over 50% of the total ANOs in order for such a decision to pass.

I think having a potential 36% of all ANOs is a rather low number for such a big decision.