Post #25558

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.
Factomize has lowered its efficiency to 0%
[QUOTE="Valentin Ganev, post: 25551, member: 114"]
We view the Standing system as a representation of the collective consensus of Standing parties. Having a diverse set of criteria from different ANOs is the only way we can ensure a holistic and fair assessment, as many ANOs are bound to prioritise different aspects in their vote (technical, legal, governance, business, marketing, efficiency, commercial projects, open-source projects, protocol usage, etc., etc.). As such, every Standing Party should have the freedom to select at least a portion of their criteria independently, and so long as these criteria are applied consistently across all ANOs, we do not see a problem. That is exactly what Factomatic has done here.
You've kind of defeated your own point, here. "[...] [B]diverse set[/B] of criteria [...]" (emphasis mine.)

You did not apply a [B][U]set[/U][/B] of criteria. You applied [B][U]one[/U][/B] criterion. This is why your decision is being called arbitrary.

If you had applied a sliding scale like "1 point for every 10% efficiency at above 20% and -1 point for every efficiency at or below 10%" or something, and this was part of a number of different criteria (one might even say [I]part of a diverse set of criteria[/I], if one was so inclined), then you wouldn't be getting called out for arbitrariness, even if it meant losing standing.

What you essentially said is this:
[*]It doesn't matter whether you have always delivered on time in the past
[*]It doesn't matter whether you have always updated the community on the progress of your development work
[*]It doesn't matter whether the projects you wish to undertake with the extra funding will greatly benefit the protocol
[*]It doesn't matter whether a grant round has just started and your project(s) cannot wait for the next one [f.ex.: added automation being ready at a reasonable time after the current Guide period ends]
[*]Literally nothing else matters

You [B]know[/B] Factomize would have spent the added funds well even outside of grant rounds (which has more formal oversight).
You [B]know[/B] Factomize would have kept the community up to date on the progress of the work via screenshots even outside of grant rounds.
You [B]know[/B] Factomize would have opened the system to extensive feedback, scrutiny and testing during its open beta phase.
You [B]know[/B] Factomize would have been open to feedback even after it was deployed, fixing bugs within minutes or hours of them being discovered.

Yet, you decided that this was worth exactly nil, because Factomize wanted an extra 10% in order to pay for more dev time in order to complete the project(s) quicker than what would be possible with less funding.
Given the fact that you say you [I]do[/I] actually apply a set of criteria, but you also say "We will not be supporting ANOs operating at less than 10% efficiency at this point in time, as we believe that the grant pool is one of the most important aspects of the ecosystem and that every ANO must make contributions to it.", I'm forced to assume the % was the only thing that caused Factomize to lose standing in your eyes.

I get that you don't want Factomize to set a precedent where everyone just goes to 0% in order to fund their own pet projects that didn't make it through the grant rounds. That is a valid concern. The difference is, this wasn't a project that didn't get funded. It wasn't a case of "if you won't fund it, we'll make you fund it". It's a long time until the next grant round. Delaying this project until then means another Guide term is almost [I]required[/I], which does still end up costing the protocol money.

[USER=2]@David Chapman[/USER] can speak for himself, but I strongly believe he did not reduce efficiency on a whim.

[QUOTE="Valentin Ganev, post: 25555, member: 114"]
If we are asked to defend our decision further, we have no problem doing so, however we would like to see the same type of questions asked of all Standing Parties for their criteria and weights [I]and[/I] the same level of in-depth answers first, before we can justify allocating more time to answer queries directed towards our choice of factors.
Oooooorrrrrr... you could make your scoring rubric public along with every vote without people needing to ask for clarification, and risk getting a wall of text that has little actual substance.

But maybe I'm wrong and maybe [USER=2]@David Chapman[/USER] actually spent 12 hours per vote filling out that scoring sheet, which might be an unreasonable ask for other ANOs to do 🤷‍♂️
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.