This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.
The 42ND Factoid AS (LTD)
[QUOTE="Julian Fletcher-Taylor, post: 12929, member: 56"]Having worked with Tor over the past year I can say that we really can't do better.
Tor is dedicated, organized, consistent, and takes all of the activities and responsibilities that come along with being a guide very seriously. He was bedrock for our guide work over the past year, and he will continue to be moving forward.
I don't think much more needs to be said, I fully support Tor as a guide.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the kind words Julian. You have been (and are) a joy to work with as a fellow guide :)
[QUOTE="Mike Buckingham, post: 12950, member: 164"]Thank you for volunteering for this challenging and valuable role.
At this stage I have one question for all of the prospective guides:
[I]If you were able to change only one thing during your tenure what would that be, why would you choose it and what would you specifically bring that would make a difference to the outcome?[/I]
(I recognise that certain guides have already made some of these things explicit in their statement and do not expect them to have to repeat that, in which case a partial answer or simple reference to their statement will suffice.)[/QUOTE]
I mentioned a list of things I will focus on in my initial post, but I actually want to mention another one as a response to this question: I want to further work towards a fixed framework for the recurring processes/events in the community. The standing parties (and especially the guides) are currently spending a lot of time and overhead on preparing “single use processes” for ANO-elections and grant application rounds - and I would like us to move towards a system akin to the guide-election-process where these are recurring at a set cadence and regulated by ratified process documents where the main-dates is defined and the process timelines provided as offsets from that one.
This would mean that you remove the large overhead, predictability is provided, and the standing parties get to more intimately know the processes as they are recurring at a set cadence. They can still be amended prior to each new “event”, but if this is not done successfully the process will still be invoked unchanged instead of a grant round for example not being initiated on time. It will also be easier for the standing parties to review the changes when done as an amendment, as changes will be marked down from the previous version instead of a new process provided (an prudent example was this current grant round document where the removing of the indemnification from the template was not marked down and thus reviewers didnt identify it as a potential issue). Another positive side is that we would not need to announce every single event during an ongoing process. With standardised timelines the main ones could be announced and the standing parties would know from experience what would be next and what action is required. In the current grant round I think we have had almost 20 announcements from the guides, and I do not believe that is sustainable long term.
[QUOTE="David Chapman, post: 12973, member: 2"]First, thank you for stepping up as a Candidate. Putting yourself out there like this is not easy and I appreciate your willingness and desire to work for the Protocol.
1. Do you have a LinkedIn? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
2. Certain processes such as Document Ratification require a 4/5 vote from Guides prior to the process moving on to additional Standing Parties for a vote. Do you feel this is a centralization of power in the ecosystem? Why or why not? And under what circumstances would you vote "no" and gatekeep that process from progressing?
3. Do you feel Guides should always be a Standing Party? If so, why? If not, when would you like to see the role removed?
1) No, but I have recently decided to create an account.
I had an account some years ago, but deactivated as I did not feel I had use for it at the time - and I got fed up with all the emails and what I felt was spam. As an Air Traffic Controller I expected to stay with the same employer my whole career (there is only one in Norway), and professional contacts in that very narrow field are not really created and maintained via LinkedIn.
Today the story is a different one, as I realise it is a potent tool for initiating advantageous contacts in this space, but more importantly it provides legitimacy for the Protocol for people doing due diligence checks on key personnel in the ecosystem.
I think it is definitely centralization of power, but at this stage I believe it is required. The main reason for this is that, in my mind, we currently do not have the necessary standing parties for the system to safely operate without Guides as gatekeepers for something as important as changing key governance aspects of the protocol.
I believe that the Governance document ratified by the community (v.1.0) should only be amended after a thorough process with necessary oversight/gatekeeping, and currently the guides are providing this function as required by Doc 001 itself. The worst that can change at this stage is that a suggested amendment is not approved, and the ecosystem continue being regulated by the previous ratified version. On the other hand, the consequences associated with making a “bad” change to the document could be severe and have unintended negative consequences. An unlikely example: What happens if the standing parties decide to change the monthly inflation from 73k Factoids to 1 million? Or... To zero?
So far I believe the ratification of new documents and amendments of Doc 001 to version 1.4 (I believe the current one up for ratification has enough votes by now) have happened in an orderly and adequate fashion, and I do not see that change any time soon. The other standing parties (ANOs at this stage) also has a pathway for removing and replacing a “rogue” guide trying to subvert the process by blocking a necessary/required change endorsed by the community.
When the framework is more mature and we have additional standing parties in place (and the system is deemed functional) I believe a good first step would be to have a collective vote (by weight) by all standing parties, so instead of functioning as gatekeepers guides would have a say in a common vote by all standing parties (i.e not voting separately).
Regarding voting no on a suggested change and thereby gatekeep the process: I provided one example above (change inflation). Others would include amendments detrimental to the protocol’s health. Examples: Remove standing parties, provide unilateral powers to one standing party, introducing processes/governance documents I believe would go against the protocol’s interest (subjective decision based on my own beliefs).
No. I do not believe that Guides should be permanent standing parties. I see it as an interim solution until we have the necessary framework in place for the other identified standing parties to come online and with a proven track record. I do however believe that the need for facilitation and coordination will almost always be there, so the guide role being defined as facilitators in the future would be in line with my vision.
Regarding a timeline.... I remember that many people in the ecosystem said they believed the guide role would become redundant rather quickly after M3 (3-12 months?). I was clear back then that I believed it would take a much longer time than that - and I am still of that view. A logical next step would be to change the voting structure for new documents/amendments to have guides vote together with the other standing parties, and then further down the road remove them as a standing party.... Personally I think we are years away from that happening, and reducing the guide scope to pure facilitation might be 2-5 years away.