Post #19463

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.
ANO Election and Demotion System - Amendment proposal
[QUOTE="Matthias Fortin, post: 19453, member: 227"]First, we need such criteria to automate a maximum of actions within our governance processes. The more we can define such criteria, the easier it is to automate these actions.
Second, Guide role is originally here to facilitate processes. Not to exercise control over them. I personally think we should stick to that vision as much as practically feasible.[/QUOTE]
I certainly agree with your first point, but the second is not entirely true. From governance 001:

[*]Guides are charged with maintaining the orderly operation of the protocol network and facilitating the relationships between standing parties and the community.
[*]Guides will be responsible for overseeing the application of the protocol governance to the operation of the protocol. To be fair, everyone involved are responsible for adhering to governance, but in practice, the Guides will be in the best position to provide guidance.
[*]Maintaining the orderly operation of the network includes 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. The guides will be in close communication with the Testnet, and monitor the performance of members of the Testnet Authority Pool.

Guides really are in charge of making sure we have 65 servers in the auth set as well as the expansion of standing parties (as defined elsewhere in the same governance). It is one of the reasons we have guides in this whole process of course.

Yes the more we can do objectively the better. The more we can automate the better.

But price alone for instance is not a good metric. We also have to take into account efficiencies. If everybody would go to 0% efficiency at 5 dollars for instance and our objective criteria would say we should be at X ANOs we are doomed as a protocol.
Guides are massaging entities into moving to higher efficiencies and doing more work from grants because of better oversight and better consensus on what, when and with what price. So my suggestion would be to tackle this thread in a broader discussion about the future roles of ANOs, as that will allow us to better define these objective criteria for ANOs.
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.