Document Discussion Reorganization of "Doc 000" - Factom community documents

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Secured
#1
Hi everyone!

The purpose of this thread is to provide insight on the re-organization of the Factom Community Documents currently being performed by me and @Samuel Vanderwaal, and to provide everyone with the opportunity to provide feedback or ask questions.

As mentioned in the title we are amending Doc 000, which basically means that we change the structure/organization of the community documents. A result of this is also that all documents (except 001 - the governance document) gets new document numbers.

The reasons for the changes are:
- Input from legal who suggested we should have "less governance documents and more processes".
- Input from legal who suggested we should create a category named "informational & administrative documents" which are neither governance- or process-documents, and which doesn't require factomizing or community approval for changes.
- Removing the "links"-section of community-projects/documents/documentation (these have been handed over to @Julian Fletcher-Taylor to which we suggested a links-repository should be created on the protocol website).

The new proposed structure looks like this:


TABLE 1:

- Governance documents (3 documents)
---- Governance document
---- Administration of Governance and Community documents ("doc 100")
---- ANO expectations

- Community Processes (6 documents)
---- Guide election/removal
---- ANO removal
---- Committee management (proposed new document)
---- Code update & network restart process (proposed new document)
---- Incident reporting & Management
---- Authority Set Emergency Alert Process

- Single use processes
---- Grants 2018-02
(note: after a single use process is not relevant anymore the document is retired to table 2. This is the reason that only one document is present in this category at this time).

- Informational and Records (12 documents)
---- Factom Community Documents (This document)
---- Verification hashes
---- Server min specs.
---- Cancellation of coinable outputs
---- Including new ANOs in the authority set
---- GDPR
---- Factom node update instructions/documentation
---- ANO Operators & Composition (list of current and previous ANOs)
---- Authority set identities & update document (the one used for tracking which servers have updated)
---- Factom community committees (list of current and previous committees)
---- Guide list
---- Factomization instructions

- Templates (4 documents)
---- General document template
---- Meeting minutes template
---- ANO application scoring matrix
---- ANO final scores - Template


TABLE 2
- Retired documents


Documents that goes into the first two categories (Governance and Processes) will require standing party approval, while "informational and records"/"templates" will not. These documents will be kept updated by either the Guides or a relevant committee.

This discussion is not ending in a vote as we are not changing anything that has been previously ratified by the community.

If you have any input, please provide it prior to the discussion closes and the proposed amendment takes effect.

Link to the amended document. (in the tables, the green documents are ratified/finished, the blue ones under construction and the "white" ones identified but work has not begun yet).

Regards
Tor & Sam
 
Last edited:

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.
 

Chappie

Timed Discussion Bot
Secured
#4
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.
 
Secured
#5
@Tor Paulsen @Samuel Vanderwaal Thank you guys for putting this together. It looks great! A couple comments regarding the first two categories.

- Governance documents (3 documents)
---- Governance document
---- Administration of Governance and Community documents ("doc 100")
---- ANO expectations

- Community Processes (6 documents)
---- Guide election/removal
---- ANO removal
---- Committee management (proposed new document)
---- Code update & network restart process (proposed new document)
---- Incident reporting & Management
---- Authority Set Emergency Alert Process
(1) I think ANO removal and guide election/removal should be under the governance documents. Governance documents are to establish the basic framework of the entire ecosystem and to define the functions and powers of various parties in the community. Doc 001 defines the roles of ANOs and Guides but does not provide all the solutions regarding the election and removal matters. These two documents complement Doc 001 and deal with granting or taking away an ANO's/Guide's right or function. They are more than processes and should be part of the governance docs.

(2) I would change "Community Processes" to "Community Processes, Standards, and Others" and move "ANO expectations" to that category to keep the number of governance docs low.
 
Secured
#6
Thanks for the feedback Shuang!

1)
I believe I agree, but following the same reasoning I suspect we should also move the proposed "Committee management" to the governance section then? If implemented it will covering the following aspects surrounding committees:
- Describe the committees general and specific functions
- Creation and disbanding of committees
- How to select and remove chair/co-chairs
- What their responsibilities are.

Again, this document is just on the planning stage as of now, but I believe we do need to formalize our committees as they are not described in governance as of today and they are already performing "core functionality" for the protocol without proper oversight.

2)
I'm a bit uncertain about renaming the "processes"-category. I would like to keep it for processes only, as these are tools that are invoked by the community to achieve a specific goal... Expanding the category also diminishes the distinction between the "process-category" (ratified docs) and "informational and records" (non-ratified) in my mind...

@Samuel Vanderwaal and other @Guides ... What are your thoughts on these matters?


Edit:
After getting input from a community member which I will refer to as "xelA" (to ensure his anonymity), I now agree that it is more important to keep the "governance"-section "pure" than the "processes" one (i.e move the expectations-document out from governance...

What do you you @Shuang Leng and the guides think about adding another table of ratified documents after "processes", and call it:
"Standards, expectations & others"?
We could have expectation documents for both guides and ANOs (and even committee chairs), as well as put the on-chain voting standard in there along with maybe a standard for FAT and other secondary layer protocols which wants to be recognized?"

Or... We listen to Shuang and do it her way. She's the expert after all :)
 
Last edited:
Secured
#8
Sounds like a great guy.
xleA does sound like a great guy!

I believe I agree, but following the same reasoning I suspect we should also move the proposed "Committee management" to the governance section then? If implemented it will covering the following aspects surrounding committees:
- Describe the committees general and specific functions
- Creation and disbanding of committees
- How to select and remove chair/co-chairs
- What their responsibilities are.

Again, this document is just on the planning stage as of now, but I believe we do need to formalize our committees as they are not described in governance as of today and they are already performing "core functionality" for the protocol without proper oversight.
If the document is to build the committees into the governance framework, then I think it should be under the governance docs. But "Committee Management" sounds more of an administrative doc to manage existing functions.

I agree that we should keep "governance" section pure. Before we create more patches to Doc 001, how about we start thinking about how to amend Doc 001? Doc 001 itself has some issues and will need to be amended later. With all these ancillary documents being created, it will be more difficult to fix the doc in the future. Ideally, all non-governance docs should be connected to the governance docs. Governance docs set up the structure. Non-governance docs set up procedures/processes/guidance for the parties in the community to carry out the functions that are already established in the governance docs.

For example, if we amend Doc 001 to include the voting requirements for removing an ANO, then the ANO removal doc can be put under the processes category because the remove doc itself will no longer create any voting rights, but only establish procedures for the standing parties to exercise the rights that are established in the governance doc already.

The removal doc should stay in the governance category since we don't have the needed amendment in place. But we probably should take a step back and fix the fundamental structure first before creating other docs or at least plan and coordinate Doc 001 amendments and new document creations at the same time to build a sound foundation for the ecosystem.



What do you @Shuang Leng and the guides think about adding another table of ratified documents after "processes", and call it:
"Standards, expectations & others"?
It sounds a good solution.

Or... We listen to Shuang and do it her way. She's the expert after all :)
That's very nice of you! I enjoy the discussion process and am constantly learning from community members. :)
 
Secured
#10
@Shuang Leng I agree with you. But one of the reasons we held of on doc 001 is because the people that actually know a thing or two about law in general were working on pointing out what is wrong with it ;)
:D You are right. I did say that before and have been slow in taking any actions. I will put something together to start the conversation, but by no means, it will be comprehensive. Refining the governance doc is no small task and will involve a lot of community discussions. Let's work together on this. Feel free to reach out to me, tag me, or remind me, or question me anytime.
 
Secured
#11
:D You are right. I did say that before and have been slow in taking any actions. I will put something together to start the conversation, but by no means, it will be comprehensive. Refining the governance doc is no small task and will involve a lot of community discussions. Let's work together on this. Feel free to reach out to me, tag me, or remind me, or question me anytime.
Lets review Doc 001 in January at the earliest. We have discussions and ratifications lined up past Christmas already :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.