This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.
[QUOTE="David Chapman, post: 12970, 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. Thank you for sharing your LinkedIn profile.[/QUOTE]
You are welcome.
[QUOTE="David Chapman, post: 12970, member: 2"]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?[/QUOTE]
This is an excellent question. And a tough and philosophical one. Not sure there is one good answer to that. It is very linked to the question of the perfect democratic system design.
The current situation clearly gives the Guides a Veto power. So yes it is in a way a centralization of power. Nevertheless, this is counter-balanced by the Guide removal process in the ANOs hands alone so the current situation is acceptable.
Now let us discuss this topic further. Why is there such a stage in the ratification process?
I can potentially distinguish two roles from the Guides in this document ratification process such as implemented:
- They act as a spam filter;
- They act as a moral authority/guardian of the protocol integrity;
I will discuss the needs for these two functions in 2 different situations: the current one and a proposal without Guides votes.
Spam filter function:
As the number of standing parties are currently limited, I do not think currently Guides need to vote "No" to limit spamming. In a near future (we all hope so), quite a big number of Standing Parties could potentially make a motion to ratify a document. ANOs and future other Standing parties would then have more and more limited bandwidth to follow these discussions. Guides’ vote can be seen as a solution. But the counter-part is a clear Veto Power. I actually think avoiding spamming should not depend on the Guides and could be automated (see below).
Moral authority / Guardian of the protocol integrity function:
The only important case where I can imagine voting “No” is if I found the proposal very dangerous for the integrity of the protocol (for example leading to a concentration of power). But still this is a centralisation of power and a kind of disempowerment of the Standing Parties. Do we think Standing Parties need to be protected from themselves or from a lemming effect? Tough one. With the Guide removal process it is an acceptable situation. This can be seen as a warning from a moral authority. If this moral authority is considered abusing its power it can be removed. At the very end the responsibility lies with the Community/Standing Parties.
[B][U]Proposal without Guides vote for Document Ratification:[/U][/B]
With Standing Parties including FCT/EC holders/users (still to be defined), the number of Standing Parties who could propose a motion to ratify a Document could explode, as the number of threads and polls proposed to the Standing Parties.
Can we accept this potential spamming situation? I am inclined to answer no. What are the solutions without Guides vote? One I can imagine is an intermediary stage where all the motions are listed for a certain period of time with a very simple description and the Standing Parties are invited to vote. If the vote passes a certain threshold then automatically a thread and a poll are open on the discussion platform (currently Factomize).
Moral authority / Guardian of the protocol integrity function:
This function of the Guides is potentially difficult to replace. Do we consider we need some people to warn the community about potential risks?
If the answer is yes, an option is to keep the same system as today. This would be very similar to Bicameralism where the Standing Parties are able to overrule the Guides through the ANO removal process or any other new processes (e.g. Guides can stop the proposed motion only once). Guides would then just moderate the ANOs but would not stop them.
If the answer is no, and all the other processes are automated (see next answer) then I think the Guide function would not be needed anymore.
The consequences of such a choice need to be well evaluated.
[QUOTE="David Chapman, post: 12970, member: 2"]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?[/QUOTE]
There are different views on this. Initially Guides are here to facilitate the Governance between Standing Parties. As mentioned in Doc 001 “The responsibilities of the Guides will be phased out over time as the functions they provide are automated into the protocol”. In an ideal fully automated world we could imagine that Guides are not needed anymore. I do not know whether this is achievable but it is clearly a target we should have in mind. One thing for sure is that the number of processes depending on the Guides needs to decrease more and more. Whether this number will reach zero or not is the question that only time will answer.
Moreover, there are a certain number of intermediary steps to achieve this. On-chain voting is one of them as once it is done, we can start to work on automating actions at the protocol level (on-chain voting is not enough by itself).
I think the only one thing which could not be automated is the moral authority/Guardian of the protocol integrity function discussed earlier. Whether this is needed or not will determine the fate of the Guide role.
[QUOTE="David Chapman, post: 12970, member: 2"]4. It's important that our Guides be diverse in their thinking and approach to problems. Which current Guide are you most opposite to in your thinking, how so, and why is that a good thing?[/QUOTE]
I am considering myself as very pragmatic and trying to find a good balance between implementing robust & durable solutions and implementing them in a reasonable period of time. I would then prefer to implement a simple short-term solution instead of a more complex solution which would be in any case replaced, and then focusing on the middle-term target which would definitely solve the issue.
Once this is said, which current Guide am I the most opposite to?
Should I really answer this question if I intend to work with all of them? The most important thing I think is that the Standing parties are now aware of my thinking and approach to problems. I let them judge whether this brings a different approach to the existing Guides thinking.