Ratified ANO Selection round 3 doc 154 amendments (priority)

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers CryptoLogic CryptoLogic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore LayerTech LayerTech Luciap Luciap Matters Matters Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Nic R Niels Klomp Nolan Bauer PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Quintilian RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed None

Should the document be ratified or amended as specified by the thread type?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes Federate This Federate This

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi All,

@Matt Osborne, @David Chapman and myself found several issues in the current 154 ANO round 3 document that has been ratified previously. I am sorry to see that this is on the guides. Thx for Matt and David for looking at solutions.


List of problems:
- 4 ANOs would be selected no matter what (instead of max 4)
- ANOs with a score below 60 could be elected
- The scores are always divided by 30 even if not 30 parties would vote, skewing results
- There were explicit number of votes in there, which isn't needed anyway and contained 1 ANO too many (25 instead of 24)
- Timeline issue (omission of closing the voting period)

As the ANO election process has started, I ask all standing parties to review the document with priority, so we can start voting ASAP. If we do not have a majority vote for ratification, it would mean we have the current flawed process.

The suggested changes
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qwG-3Y7FIAmsKz51S0hG5OP-R1qrDnVp0qrcuopTgOo/edit

Please comment and hopefully end discussion early, so we can start voting on the amendment.

Thanks for your cooperation.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
This thread is a Document Ratification/Amendment Timed Discussion and I am designed to help facilitate efficient communication.

Guides and ANOs may take part in this discussion and vote. Unless this discussion is ended early or extended, it will end in 8 days after which a vote will take place. After 18 hours from the start of the thread or any point up until 24 hours are left in the discussion, you can make a motion to end the discussion immediately or extend the discussion beyond it's initial time frame by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. If someone "seconds" your motion, a poll will take place which requires a majority of Standing Parties to vote one way or the other.

At the end of the discussion period, Guides will vote first and 4 must vote yes otherwise the process ends. If 4 do vote yes, ANOs then vote and if 60% vote yes, the document is successfully ratified or amended.
 
Hi,

I'd just like to thank everyone for digging into this more deeply. You have identified issues with the Doc that should be resolved. Please have a look at this piece of work that is referenced in the Doc and does show the original intent and capability to ensure a fair vote by properly counting the number that had voted and dividing by that to derive the score(s).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17v9UaYev3WFzmSQCe0Za4FnH-Oq-A4rso3kD5MZVG1o/edit?usp=sharing

By all means critique this and if there are improvements lets make them.

Edited to clarify that this was in the Doc.
 
Last edited:
In the doc it says:
but Shuang pointed out that in the scoring matrix it says the testnet admin will take part as well. Which is correct?
Hi David,
I remember an early conversation which I think I had with Tor to state that the Testnet admin should be consulted about this, as they have been in the past. Whichever way it is it was agreed that the Guides would be responsible for determining this score. We do however need to rapidly conclude how this is proposed to be done. My recollection is that it will be delegated to one of the Guides.
 
Can I just check something? We now have PDF extracts for both the standing parties and the guides which break the questions (and responses) into the Subjective and Technical categories. Does anyone see an issue with using exactly the same two PDF extracts to post in each individual applicants Factomize thread to serve as feedback for them which is a transparent way of doing this?

We currently propose to do this upon the close of applications in the period between:
Application period ends: 30th of April at 23:59 UTC.
All applications are made public: 1st of May at 12:00 UTC.

This would also serve to communicate the information to the Standing Parties and Guides. Alternatively I can create one consolidated feedback PDF in the original question sequence in which case I will have to find another way of communicating the separate PDFs (and optional Google Sheets) to the Standing Parties and Guides.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Document Ratification/Amendment Discussion by an additional 72 hours or end this conversation by selecting the pertinent button at the top of this thread. This option will end when there are 24 hours left in the discussion.
 
Mike, I sincerely apologize for my ignorance, but I've read what you posted a few times and for whatever reason it's not clicking exactly what you're proposing. Can you maybe post examples of exactly what you mean?
Hi David,

No need to apologize.

In previous rounds the responses were fed back to the participants as a single text document. In the last round this was posted by Niels on Factomize for each applicant. Dependent on how the applicants have prepared themselves this may be the first time they have seen their responses as a single document.

This is the one we received from him https://factomize.com/forums/attachments/cube3-technologies-ltd-pdf.182/

This literally takes each question and answer in sequence.

I can produce this if it is the best thing to do. However (with acknowledgement for your suggestion of playing this back as a PDF!) we now have two separate PDF docs. One is the subjective extract for the Standing Parties and one is the technical extract for the Guides.

I have shown the templates below but you should be able to see what I mean.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RGvJ3vpvoEnVvY2rT0MJOYeuHiYDMWwrPVljEpkvYiw/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f6wIWX3sLWosCUsR_OlZXSAozQ8U0hBy5N4I5a7assA/edit?usp=sharing

I'd value an opinion on whether we should stick to the way it has been done before or use the new extracts. Using the new extracts mean that the applicant sees two documents. In some respects this is fairer because they can see them in the same way we are going to mark them.

Hopefully that makes it clearer. If not I am happy to have a quick call to try to better explain.
 
In the doc it says:
but Shuang pointed out that in the scoring matrix it says the testnet admin will take part as well. Which is correct?
Hi David,

Thank you and Shuang for raising this.

I have checked with Niels and he has advised:
"Since the technical scores are less subjective what happens is that one guide scores them and others validate. We use the testnet admin to gain knowledge about whether a team had some difficulties or not."

This was my understanding but the clarification is useful.

I take this to mean that the Guides are accountable for this and in executing their responsibility will consult with the Testnet admin. So both are involved, only the Guides are accountable.

I propose to change the relevant wording in Doc154 to:
* 40% of the marks for the more objective/technical questions will be awarded by the guides in consultation with the Testnet admin.

I trust that this clarifies and resolves this but if it doesn't please come back to me.
 
I'd value an opinion on whether we should stick to the way it has been done before or use the new extracts. Using the new extracts mean that the applicant sees two documents. In some respects this is fairer because they can see them in the same way we are going to mark them.
I defer to others on this one. I'm unsure on the best way.
 
I have done a final check, including the links and have made one small amendment about the reference to the highlighted application deadline of April 30th 2019 (23:59 UTC).
It seems OK to me but I have read it a number of times now and because of that it's easy to miss things so I'd appreciate others checking it through as well.
 
I've accepted suggested changes. Can everyone do a final check?
I have not done a full review (I have been traveling and only had 10 minutes now), but to me it seems ok now.

Two minor points:
- Should we add text to define if they are deemed an ANO (formally) when elected, or alternatively when actually successfully completing the on boarding process?
- There is a page break on the third page of the document which means there is a blank page (it needs to be removed).
 
I have not done a full review (I have been traveling and only had 10 minutes now), but to me it seems ok now.

Two minor points:
- Should we add text to define if they are deemed an ANO (formally) when elected, or alternatively when actually successfully completing the on boarding process?
- There is a page break on the third page of the document which means there is a blank page (it needs to be removed).
Hi Tor, I'd missed the page break!

I am not sure whether the subject of when an applicant actually becomes an ANO, following a successful selection, has been discussed before so we may be setting a precedent. It strikes me that an ANO is only really an ANO once they have been onboarded and running on mainnet and receiving income for performance.

As such I have made the following suggested amendment to paragraph 3.1:

Each ANO candidate will campaign to operate two Factom authority servers with the knowledge that at some point in the future, this will become one. Elected ANO candidates will be onboarded at a pace decided by the Standing Parties, and the onboarding will happen in order of election. Once elected and onboarded they have full ANO status and rewards and carry the responsibility of being a Standing Party.

Let me know if this achieves what you intended.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
David Chapman has made a motion to end the discussion early. If someone seconds this motion by selecting the button below, a vote on the motion will start.

A majority voting yay will pass the motion and the discussion will end immediately. This motion will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or a motion to end the discussion is passed by a majority.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
Tor Paulsen has seconded the motion to end the discussion early.

A motion is now active at the top of this thread to vote if you want to end the discussion early and move on the next phase. A majority voting yes will pass the motion and the discussion will be closed immediately. This vote will remain open until the normal discussion period ends or another motion is passed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top