Post #13035

Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
The 42ND Factoid AS (LTD)
[QUOTE="DanG, post: 13020, member: 50"]Firstly, thank you for putting yourself up for election for this important and challenging position! These are general questions that I am asking to all applicants. If you feel the questions are redundant to your previous replies. Feel free to cite that and move forward.

Having recently ratified changes to Doc 001 I would appreciate it if you could take a moment to explain how you will intend to carry out the following as a guide.

1. Under Guide eligibility standards.
(a) demonstrate independence in thought, leadership, and business
(b) be of good moral character with a demonstrated interest in the long term best interests of the protocol, willingness to serve the community of users, and history as a leader in the community.

2. Under Guide responsibilities
(a) make themselves available to the community
(b) Maintain orderly operation of the protocol network and facilitate the relationships between standing parties and the community. Further, by ensuring an adequate number of applicants to run a large enough pool of servers to ensure 65 servers are always available for the Authority Set.
(c) Be responsible for overseeing the application of the protocol governance to the operation of the the protocol.

Finally I see the responsibility of “Maintain orderly operation of the protocol” to extend beyond simply the technical and governance parts of the protocol and extending towards the wider community. Do you agree with this interpretation? If so how do you intend to achieve this?

As a guide up for reelection could you also please touch on how you have accomplished any of the elements listed above and how you intend too moving forward.

Thanks Again[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the questions Dan.

1a, 1b)
I belive pointing to my previous work with suggesting, organising and facilitating the community testnet, and then subsequently what I brought to the table as a guide so far is a sufficient response to these questions.

I believe my actions in those roles over the past 1.5 years speaks for themselves - both positively and negatively and should form a decent basis for the standing parties to make an assessment about my independence of thought and moral character.

I have participated in most guide-meetings (I’m travelling so checking the exact number in the minutes would be a hassle) the past year, as well as participated in public discussions and generally been available to answer questions and interact with the community most days over the past years. I think that people who have contacted me via PM could attest to me providing an answer/feedback within a reasonable amount of time (hours).

If re-elected I would continue in the same manner as before, trying to be as available as possible/reasonable to the community.

This is really a three-part question, so I will divide up my answers appropriately:
- [B]Orderly operation of the network[/B] is in my mind mostly a technical aspect/question. It tasks the guides with ensuring that the network is functional and stable, and that updates are disseminated and applied in an proper fashion. When this text in Doc 001 was written there were no committees yet, so I believe it was put in there to ensure that someone was tasked with this certain responsibility. During the past 6 months or so this has however been largely executed by the Core Committee. As co-chair of that committee I have however handled substantial parts of this coordinatination. I believe a high-level responsibility of oversight should still lie with the Guides, i.e. that if the orderly operation of the network is disrupted and not competently handled by the committee they need to step up and take the necessary steps to get thinks back on track. This includes identifying any issues related to the current framework/setup, and rectifying these to ensure stable operations of the network. An example of a solution I brought to the table was expanding on the update-spreadsheet (thanks to the person why made the first version and to [USER=12]@Ben Jeater[/USER] for help with the formulas), and adapt it for tracking the status of Factomd-updates to the Authority Set.
- [B]Facilitate relationships between standing parties and the community. [/B]The most important aspect of this in my mind is definitely the expansion of standing parties to include staking and EC-users. ANOs and Guides should be held responsible to FCT-holders and users of the protocol, and while constructive social interaction is important in this respect, the more important part is to create a solution where these other parties have real, tangible standing with the protocol. The efforts we have done the past year with ensuring that our processes are as transparent as possible, with meetings being open for anyone to attend, the minutes Factomized and publicised, the creation of the ANO contribution forum (open for everyone to ask questions) and much more are very important in this respect. I cannot claim responsibility for most of these, but I would certainly work towards further ensuring that the broader community are able to observe and inquire about standing party processes.
[B]- Adequate amount of applicants to ensure a large enough pool of servers to ensure that 65 are always available to the Authority Set[/B]. When the governance document was ratified and this text included I believe most of us expected that we would grow to 65 ANOs at a higher rate than we are currently seeing. Due to factors like the price dropping significantly, and stability issues with the protocol this is taking more time than anticipated - but in my mind that is quite healthy, and the path of organic growth we are currently experiencing are in line with my own perception how we should proceed. The current state of the network requires a lot of coordination and manual inputs (as evident by the efforts to get the network up again after the previous stall), and I prefer us to slowly add new ANOs at a rate which ensures that they get up to speed and gain experience through network participation. If the price dropped significantly again we might experience a situation where multiple ANOs would potentially leave the network, and at that stage we would need take more hands-on action to ensure we remain adequately decentralized. But again: at this stage I believe our current approach of doing ANO-rounds with a limited amount of open spots is the most sensible one.

I am very cognisant about the fact that our governance is socially enforced and not mapped 1:1 onto our current network state and topography. The real “hard power” sits with the Authority Set and the associated identities, and it is of paramount importance that our social governance is seen as legitimate by all the current and future standing parties. This is the reason why I am so very occupied with creating open, accessible and transparent processes that are endorsed and ratified by the standing parties - and why I am also going to pursue this as one of my main objectives during the next year if re-elected.

Regarding your question about the “wider community”, could you please clarify your question? I am uncertain if you refer to the current system of governance that applies mainly to the current standing parties, or if you are also including the identified future standing parties (stakers, EC-users) in this definition?

For the last question I could provide a rather detailed answer, but prefer to give a relatively short one. If you or others want I’m happy to expand on this. The past year I have worked on creating a lot of our current governance framework and bootstrapped initial processes into place so we have the resemblances of a transparent, predictable and functional framework. Going forward I would like to expand on this as described in my initial post in this thread.

Edit: That spreadsheet I mentioned above was apparently made by @maxlambda. Thanks a bunch! :)
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.