Process Discussion Guide Process Discussion

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#1
This timed discussion is the first step in a creating a process to govern matters relating to Guides. The main things to address are Guide elections and removal but I want to crowd source what other things should be included in this process. The goal of this discussion is to flesh out the main ideas to be included in the document so I can draft it up and have legal review it before we take it to the ratification process. I'll keep an updated list of points in this thread so we can keep track of what the consensus is on various items.

****

Elections
  • Elections
    • What is the length of a Guide's term?
    • Are there any term limits?
    • What is the process for holding elections?
    • Should elections be staggered to ensure Guide continuity or should Guides all be elected at once?
  • Removal
    • What are causes that justify a Guide's removal?
    • What is the process for initiating a Guide removal and what is the required vote threshold?
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#2
This thread is a Major Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Everyone 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 may 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 and if a majority of voters vote yes by the time the discussion is scheduled to end, the time period will be extended for 72 hours.
 
Secured
#3
Secured
#4
I wrote a draft document for the removal process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sWGG1oyBJ5ZpQkJ63IpTEylosRr0DObhPEHa2gJ_BTQ/edit?usp=sharing

I don't know that there needs to be a specific list of causes that justify a Guides removal. Should there be?
There doesn't necessarily. I was providing some initial questions to generate discussion. I'm going to participate less in this discussion as I have a conflict of interest as a Guide. I will focus on facilitating the discussion and helping to confirm the community consensus but will otherwise let the non-Guide members of the community hash out how they want this to work.
 
Secured
#6
Elections
  • Elections
    • What is the length of a Guide's term?
    • Are there any term limits?
    • What is the process for holding elections?
    • Should elections be staggered to ensure Guide continuity or should Guides all be elected at once?
  • Removal
    • What are causes that justify a Guide's removal?
    • What is the process for initiating a Guide removal and what is the required vote threshold?
I updated the removal draft to also include elections and the potential for removal of all Guides: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sWGG1oyBJ5ZpQkJ63IpTEylosRr0DObhPEHa2gJ_BTQ/edit?usp=sharing -- suggestions for improvement are welcome.

I do not suggest we have term limits and I don't think we need to stagger elections.
 
Last edited:

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#8
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. If you have taken part in the thread, you may now make a motion to extend this Major Discussion by 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.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#9
Matt Osborne has made a motion to extend the discussion. If someone seconds this motion by selecting the button below, a vote on the motion will start.

A majority voting yay will pass the motion and the discussion will be extended for 72 hours. This motion will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or a motion to end the discussion is passed by a majority.
 
Secured
#10
Tor, in regards to these comments:

Screenshot 2018-11-25 at 8.54.16 AM.png


1. There is no process for disbanding the Guide Position so I included it in this document. I don't see why Doc 001 Governance has to be changed before Guides can be disbanded. Doc 001 even says at some point Guides will likely be removed so the precedence is there. And yes, a lot of documents (including Doc 001) would need to be changed after the fact when that does finally happen.

2. Regarding limiting this to ANOs:
A. I do not believe Guides should be voting for or against Guides.

B. Doc 001 explicitly states that 10% of Standing Parties need to approved a motion to remove a Guide. That's easy with ANOs. Once we have FCT Stakeholders and more, that'll be virtually impossible. Doc 001 needs to be amended to make this process viable.
 
Secured
#13
@David Chapman
@Colin Campbell

The reason I wanted the guides to vote in the guide elections is basically that the guides are also part of the community and more importantly: standing parties. I would like to use the "standing party model" for grants, elections (guide+ANO), document creation/amendments etc. as a principle.... I'm not married to the idea however....


Regarding using this document for disbanding the guides all together. I still believe that this CAN NOT be done through this process. To remove the guide position the Governance Document HAS to be updated by removing the guide-section of that document.

Also remember that if we "disband" the guides outside the governance document (which I'm arguing is not possible) there would be no way to change the governance document at all, and we would be stuck with the current version forever (it states that the guides will have to be part of altering the document).

So to reiterate: I firmly believe that the section about disbanding the guide position cannot be included in this document. Also there is actually a process for removing the guide position; it is to amend the governance document through the process described in doc 100.
 
Secured
#14
@Tor Paulsen makes a good point about the disbanding of guides. We would need to alter all documents that require guide intervention before a standing party vote to not include guides. I think the disbanding of the guides roll will need to be a specific process.

Saying that, I think that we could reference the disbanding process within this document as a separate section. This section would state that the guide roll is supposed to be disbanded at some point and the way to start the process of disbanding would be to hold a vote with the topic "Should we begin the process of disbanding the guides roll?". We can't use the same process for a single guide as the whole of the guides (instant removal) because that would be a cliff-edge.
 
Secured
#15
What if we alter all documents to disband Guides then have the vote and the vote is to not disband Guides?

The vote needs to come first.

And no, we won't need Guides to alter the documents once they are uploaded to the document management system here on Factomize / factomprotocol.org since there are version histories. In addition, the documentation committee can be provided access to the Factom Protocol Google Drive.

1. Copy the document.
2. Make the suggestions.
3. Put the doc up for ratification.
4. If approved, upload it to the document management system and Drive.
 
Secured
#16
You don't get it David. I'm not talking about the administrative work going into updating the document. I'm saying that the amendment clause in the Governance document states that the GUIDES have to VOTE for it to be changed.

If you remove the guides through this process it will be impossible to amend the governance document as you don't have the required 4/5 guide approval for it.
 
Secured
#18
What does everyone think about the idea of having more than 5 guides over time? With a high enough FCT price and enough qualified people willing to apply for the position, I think it could be a great thing to help further decentralize the protocol as well as boost productivity
 
Secured
#19
What does everyone think about the idea of having more than 5 guides over time? With a high enough FCT price and enough qualified people willing to apply for the position, I think it could be a great thing to help further decentralize the protocol as well as boost productivity
The guides are mainly tasked with electing new ANOs, administering the grant process until we have a finalized and more autonomous one, creating proper governance processes and administrative infrastructure... As well as providing insight on community matters and facilitate open discussions on important matters where everyone in the community can participate.

As the community grows I believe working groups/committees are the way to go to boost productivity and get more people involved.... Which will also be very good for decentralization if we manage to get non-ANOs/guides involved in such capacities.
 
Secured
#20
The guides are mainly tasked with electing new ANOs, administering the grant process until we have a finalized and more autonomous one, creating proper governance processes and administrative infrastructure... As well as providing insight on community matters and facilitate open discussions on important matters where everyone in the community can participate.

As the community grows I believe working groups/committees are the way to go to boost productivity and get more people involved.... Which will also be very good for decentralization if we manage to get non-ANOs/guides involved in such capacities.
Tor, I think that is a great idea. Having specialized individuals working on specific areas would go a long way in promoting in the protocol. Seems like there would eventually be a need to figure out how these people would be elected to each working group.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#21
Samuel Vanderwaal has seconded the motion to extend the discussion.

A motion is now active at the top of this thread to vote if you want to extend the discussion. A majority voting yes will pass the motion and the discussion will be extended for 72 hours. This vote will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or another motion is passed.
 
Secured
#22
I updated the removal draft to also include elections and the potential for removal of all Guides: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sWGG1oyBJ5ZpQkJ63IpTEylosRr0DObhPEHa2gJ_BTQ/edit?usp=sharing -- suggestions for improvement are welcome.

I do not suggest we have term limits and I don't think we need to stagger elections.
From the Governance Document:

2.5.1 Once the infrastructure is in place, subsequent Guides will be selected by voting, generally in a staged set of elections, with one Guide elected per election. Ratification of votes by Guides will be done initially until confidence in the infrastructure has developed.
and

2.5.4 A Guide’s service will be of a limited duration. They may be limited for a number of blocks, or using a support discount that favors new Guides after some number of blocks.
In my experience as a Guide so far, staggered elections make sense to me because it ensures continuity rather than having a disruptive month where you are potentially replacing all the Guides in a short time-period.

Thoughts?
 
Secured
#23
Sam, the key there is, " Once the infrastructure is in place". I believe the intent with those two sections was to automate the entire process surrounding Guides on chain. We're not there. Nowhere close. If/when we get to that point, we can amend as necessary.

Staggered elections make sense when you have term limits with defined dates for elections. We don't have those and I don't think we should focus on trying to set them right now as it'll be much more complicated than many may realize and I think we have more important fish to fry.
 
Secured
#25
My stance from the beginning, including when I was a Guide, has always been that Guides should be automated out as soon as possible. Thus, my current stance is:

1. Continue as is with no term limit or reelection stipulation with the goal of automating out Guides.
2. If Guides continue to perform, great. Keep at it boys.
3. If a Guide doesn't perform, they can be removed once that document is ratified.
4. If a Guide resigns, we can hold the election once that document is ratified.
5. If we get to a point where we're ready to remove the Guide position, we can do so once that document is ratified (we also need to update Doc 001).

We're just over 6 months into the existence of Guides and a TON of progress has been made. I would never support a 1 year term if we actually had term limits. Two would be the bare minimum. Based upon the amount of progress we're making, I hope that the Guide position will be able to be removed a little before the two year mark which would negate the need for term limits anyway. As such, I strongly suggest not implementing them at this point as that's going to open up a lot more discussion than I think most realize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.