Process Discussion Should we create a Research Group to build out an approach for inter-ANO review?

Secured
#1
During the monthly ANO meeting held on Thursday, January 31st, 2019 at 1900 UTC, the concept of creating a research group to establish "confidence" or "no confidence" in inter-ANO review was discussed.

This concept arises from the motivation to ensure that ANO's are providing value to the Protocol in line with their contributions. This is also a positive step towards accountability for future standing parties. As the Authority Set grows and the Protocol matures over time, holding each other accountable for these duties and pledges becomes more imperative. We are on a path towards becoming a global utility with use cases that have an impressive amount of benefits for governments, enterprises, and in all matters of securing data. And in order to achieve our collective goals, we will need methods of review that are fair, patient, communicative, and collaborative.

The purpose of this thread is to determine if we should create a research group that can build out the appropriate method of review. The presently proposed framework is to establish a voting process wherein current Standing Parties can vote either in "confidence" or in "no confidence" on a given ANO's performance -- where voting "confidence" indicates an approval of an ANO's performance, and a vote of "no confidence" indicates a disapproval of an ANO's performance (with respect to an ANO's technical duties and stated pledges).

There are a variety of proposed methods for the roll-out of inter-ANO review, and this thread will serve as the initial point of discussion to eventually integrate this process into the Factom Protocol by affirming whether the Standing Parties and the community would like to see this research group created.

After 3 days of discussion, I will create a poll within this thread that ANO's can vote on. The vote will go up on Thursday, 2/14/19, at 6:00 AM UTC.

From my memory, the following people have expressed interest in the creation of and eventually participating in this research group:

Colin Campbell - Federate This
Julian Fletcher-Taylor - DBGrow
Matt Osborne - Go Immutable
Mike Buckingham - Cube3
Nic Robinette - DBGrow

Please note that if interested in becoming a member of this research group, do indicate so in the comments. I would also like to encourage Non-ANO's with an interest in the governance of the Protocol to state if they are interested in participating in this research group.

** Please also note that this vote is NOT to discuss potential approaches (such as confidence/no confidence) in inter-ANO review; this vote is to determine whether we want to create a Research Group tasked with building out a confidence/no confidence framework or something similar to that effect. The discussion here is to also gauge interest from Standing Parties and general community members (non-ANO's) about participating in this group.**
 
Secured
#7
@liveanddie Thank you for your input here! One of the reasons I decided not to initially enter a poll in the creation of this thread was to ensure that non-ANO's could comment and share their thoughts. If I had created a poll, it would have most likely only included ANO's, and in creating that, general community members would not have been able to comment in the thread.

I think it's extremely important that non-ANO's have a say in processes like this. And these non-ANO's will some day be able to vote in matters such as these when FCT Staking (Proof of Stake) and EC burners (Proof of Use) are granted Standing. When it comes to voting, we are still pretty early on in the governance of the Protocol, and we don't really have the framework composed in governance yet for non-ANO's to be voting in something like this. As much as I would love for non-ANO's to eventually hold weight in a Protocol Process Discussion like this, there are some concerns I would have to raise when contemplating that possibility as of this time:

- The possibility of trolls enacting their will via FUD or group brigading.
- The sheer reality that there are likely FAR more community members who could vote as opposed to only 24 ANO's (imbalancing the vote).
- The haste with which this vote change (i.e. including everyone) would occur relative to the (likely) large debate that could ensue if non-ANO's were able to suddenly vote here.

In sum, I want us to get to the point where other people in the community outside of Guides and ANO's can vote in Protocol Processes, but we aren't quite there yet. For now, the discussion may include non-ANO's. And I encourage that.
 
Secured
#9
@liveanddie Thank you for your input here! One of the reasons I decided not to initially enter a poll in the creation of this thread was to ensure that non-ANO's could comment and share their thoughts. If I had created a poll, it would have most likely only included ANO's, and in creating that, general community members would not have been able to comment in the thread.

I think it's extremely important that non-ANO's have a say in processes like this. And these non-ANO's will some day be able to vote in matters such as these when FCT Staking (Proof of Stake) and EC burners (Proof of Use) are granted Standing. When it comes to voting, we are still pretty early on in the governance of the Protocol, and we don't really have the framework composed in governance yet for non-ANO's to be voting in something like this. As much as I would love for non-ANO's to eventually hold weight in a Protocol Process Discussion like this, there are some concerns I would have to raise when contemplating that possibility as of this time:

- The possibility of trolls enacting their will via FUD or group brigading.
- The sheer reality that there are likely FAR more community members who could vote as opposed to only 24 ANO's (imbalancing the vote).
- The haste with which this vote change (i.e. including everyone) would occur relative to the (likely) large debate that could ensue if non-ANO's were able to suddenly vote here.

In sum, I want us to get to the point where other people in the community outside of Guides and ANO's can vote in Protocol Processes, but we aren't quite there yet. For now, the discussion may include non-ANO's. And I encourage that.
Thank you for your thoughtful response Nic. Happy to hear you thought about this before creating this thread.

So just to reiterate some key points:
  • Standing Parties want to see anyone being rewarded through the Factom Protocol also reviewed to make sure they are delivering. This goes without saying, we don't want to end up with Standing Parties not doing shit but paid
  • At the same time, we don't want to end up in a Teacher-Student scenario where Standing Parties are afraid because they are watched, so we need to strike a balance
In that sense and with the points you reiterated, a Poll makes no sense as OF COURSE this should be a thing. So this should simply be a discussion without any polls to discuss any concerns and thoughts on this subject before strategizing on how best to implement it. Because of course it should be implemented in some way.

Last feedback, I don't see how 3 day discussion periods are enough when we want to have 26 ANOs read and contribute to this thread as well as non-ANOs. These things should be open for a week or more to allow everyone to participate with a clear mind and digest digest digest.
 
Secured
#10
@liveanddie So the main purpose of the thread was to determine these two things:

- Should we create the research group?
- Who wants to be involved?

Debating the ways in which we can evaluate ANO performance and all the intricacies that can be baked into that conversation are the sorts of topics that the research group will first try to tackle -- as it's most efficient to have a subset of the ANO's + general community discussing options prior to presenting a "best practice" to the community at large on Factomize. The initial conversations for this framework would first be back and forth-ed among the members of the research group, and after that, whatever proposal or framework/approach is internally decided to be the best practice would be presented to the community for discussion/deliberation on Factomize. Also, it's worth mentioning that this topic (confidence/no confidence) has come up in at least one other thread (if memory serves me right -- when we were discussing trial periods for new ANO's), and I can't say that there was really any consensus of opinion. This thread is the next step in bringing together some minds to work together on this particular topic.

That said, I'd love for you to join the research group if you're interested in participating.

Also, regarding the poll, if we all don't think it's needed, I have no problem with not creating a poll; I included it initially because I felt that it was a courtesy for anyone who may feel differently.
 
Secured
#13
Hey everyone, it looks like we have only affirmations about creating this Research Group, so I am going to move forward without a poll. If anyone feels a poll would be beneficial, please let me know or post here, and we can go ahead with that option, instead.

Thank you to everyone that expressed interest in joining. I will be creating a Discord Group DM later tonight to hopefully bring in everyone who wants to be in this Group.