Doc 107

Secured
#5
Spent an embarrassingly long time trying to simply move one column up so it's all in order as desired (feel free to laugh at the revision history).
Couldn't work out the highlighting it in that particular texture of blue, can I leave that to someone more talented. It's almost as if we've recreated regulatory capture in all it's glory here.

Is google docs really the best place for a decentralised protocol? Github pages can nice it up and look pretty if thats what people actually care about, if people don't actually care then just use good ole markdown.

Markdown is incredibly simple. Again struggling with the reasoning behind this choice for the community, everyone who wants to contribute here needs a google account?
 
Secured
#6
I have also long been a proponent of using Github for our governance docs. It was knocked back because Google Docs is a bit easier to use for someone who has no experience of Git/Github. I still think it is the better option though. The clear revision history, versioning and excellent support for reviews makes it an overall better platform for our use case.
 
Secured
#9
Indeed, this whole proposal is that the opportunity should be there for anyone who wants to submit early. Or even draft grants that can be discussed without fear or favour. People can always submit grants 10 minutes before the deadline as exists now, opening up the period allows more time for discussion and community input.

This thread itself is just a draft proposal, not sure if I chose the appropriate setting. I will likely submit a formal proposal in approximately a week from now, barring the issue with section 3 that Neils raised. The document itself is modifiable by anyone wanting to do so. There's also a comment section on google docs for chat. Thanking the guides for advice already given, it's much appreciated.

Have seen objections based on extra work/effort on the part of ANO's but my view is that it's a lot less effort to see a grant months before the deadline round and make up your mind about it then than cramming it all into a small period of judging all the proposals. At the very least standing parties can ease the workload intensity by moving forward some of their time taken up having to assess these things every three months.

Three ANO's didn't vote in the last round, that's quite a large proportion of absent votes, hopefully a longer period gets more participation.
 
Secured
#12
Have have read chapter 3, still can't work out what is the technical issue with the proposed numbers as exists. Not particularly fussed about any arbitrary dates/times personally, the intention was more about extended discussion and thought periods for the community about grants.

Not seeing what the real problem is. If anyone can elucidate I'd be more grateful. For posterity here's the entire section for everyone:
    1. The grant application round starts with an announcement from the Factom protocol guides (the “Guides”). This announcement contains information about how to apply for a grant in the respective grant round as well as dates and deadlines for said round. This announcement will be made in the #guide-announcements Discord channel on the Factom Community Discord server, as well as in the Community Forum. All users in the discord server will be tagged for this message by the use of the @everyone tag.
    2. Links to this initial announcement will be placed on social media like the Factom subreddit to ensure the widest distribution.
    3. Any formal announcements (timelines, amount of FCT to be awarded etc.) regarding grant application rounds shall be solely made by the Guides. Subsequent updates/announcements shall be disseminated via the community discord server.
    4. Not all subsequent events in application rounds will be announced, as to keep the number of announcements at a manageable level for both the guides and the wider community. Cells with blue background in table 4.2 mark the obligatory announcements.
 
Secured
#13
I have reviewed the document and made a few changes and suggestions.

I did not find anything that needed to change in chapter 3, but paragraph 4.7.1 did require an update.

@Guides can you please review this document and provide your thoughts? I see no reason why it can't be put up for a formal ratification next week.

Edit: @David Chapman would this generate any issues on your end with the forum?

Tor
 
Secured
#14
I've reviewed the draft document and do not see any glaring issues with it. If opening the application and discussion window to 80 days prior fosters increased discussion and participation, I'm all for it. Grant applicants will be incentivized to post early to garner feedback and, in the unlikely case of a tie, will have priority. I'd like to think this will result in grant applicants submitting their proposals earlier, but predict we will continue to see many submissions immediately prior to the deadline.

Side note to @Guides - need to update Doc 216 to incorporate 2020. I'll start building it out.

Regarding the GitHub migration for governance docs, I'm not against the idea. Would support whatever the community decides.