Process Discussion For ANO selection round #3 should Standing Parties and Guides manage 60:40 of the votes?

For ANO selection round #3 should Standing Parties and Guides manage 60:40 of the votes?


Have not voted

Guides Brian Deery Niels Klomp

Authority Nodes BI Foundation BI Foundation BuildingIM BuildingIM De Facto De Facto Factom Inc. Factom Inc. Factomatic Factomatic Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Prestige IT Prestige IT VBIF VBIF

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Secured
#1
The prior discussion on this subject: https://factomize.com/forums/thread...ides-and-standing-parties-in-next-round.1712/ contains the relevant background material. Please read this if you have not already done so.

Following this can you please vote on this question:

For the next ANO selection round (#3) does the community want ALL Standing Parties to vote on the non-technical aspects (60% of marks) and the Guides to vote on the technical aspects (40% of marks)?
 
Last edited:
Secured
#2
(I re-post here the questions I have asked in the previous thread and which did not get answered as I have asked them a bit late)

Just thinking about clarifying two points. They are quite formal points and it does not challenge the substance of the proposed change which I am comfortable with:
- Do we expect only one vote for all the Guides (along with the Testnet Admins) or multiple votes (5, one for each Guide) which should be all very close one to each other as this concerns "objective criteria"?
- What does motivate the change of the weight proposed in the Excel sheet compared to Doc 001 V1.4 (Location going up from 5% to 10%, Node reliability goind down from 16% to 5% and the Human Determinable factors going up from 49% to 55%)

And thank you for this work which furthers the decentralisation process.
 
Secured
#3
Hi Matthias,
It is currently proposed that the guides will delegate the marking of the objective questions' responses to one guide. This effectively produces one vote for the guides.
With regard to the change in marks this is currently being reviewed by the Research Group and I expect an answer shortly, apologies for the delay.
 
Secured
#5
Hi Matthias,

When the guides created the scoring matrix for previous rounds they realised that the weights in 001 didn't make sense.

So they changed it to what is in the current template, as used in the previous rounds, but did not update doc001 because they didn't see it as necessary and wanted more experience before doing changes.

So we are now just suggesting that we formalise what we have already used for the two previous rounds.

Apologies for the delay in providing this which I hope now makes this clearer.