Amendment Demotion threshold increase (Doc 005)

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Anton Ilzheev BlockVenture Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Consensus Networks Consensus Networks CryptoLogic CryptoLogic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium Luciap Luciap PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed HashQuark

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


Have not voted

Authority Nodes DBGrow DBGrow PrestigeIT PrestigeIT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello, this is updated Doc 005 ANO Promotion and Demotion System:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yr22e7OjlfZo73GT9AwnS-vGv_Ps0gMN/view?usp=sharing

Why?
The current ANO Standing Party showed that it can hardly remove inactive ANOs, when there is a high-ratio of inactive ANOs.
We propose to increase demotion threshold to 60% from current 50% to avoid such situations in the future.
This threshold level also echoes with the promotion threshold of 60%.

What?
Updated 2.2, 2.3, 4.4 (changed "50%" to "60%").
 

Chappie

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

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, ANOs vote and if 60% vote yes, the document is successfully ratified or amended.
 
I'd be okay with it, but I'm not sure the threshold is the problem. Too many parties are not updating their votes in time. We've placed all absent ANOs under the threshold now and many have been removed. It's just that it's taken way too long for it to happen.

If there are lessons to take here, I'd say it's the following.

1. The system works, but we need more active participation. People either lack the time or don't care, so I proposed a kind of delegation model where standing votes can be copied from a trusted party (either the proposed Council or trusted governance ANOs). If you don't like how they score, manually update the 'delegated vote' with your preference.

2. The 90-day removal window is a bit lengthy. The logic behind it is sound (90 day removal coincides with quarterly ANO updates and standing reviews) - so I'd instead suggest a provision that dropping below the threshold is a valid reason for the Removal for Cause procedure. After all, for some we want to see an improvement in 90 days. For others it's pretty obvious they'll never improve and we want to see them gone sooner rather than later.

3. While we're at it, we don't want to accidentally resurrect demoted ANOs by pushing them over the threshold again. Demoted ANOs should be removed from the dashboard and can re-apply. I think this is already possible with the way it's currently worded, but let's make it more explicit.
 
It's just that it's taken way too long for it to happen.
Yes, and increasing threshold will make it faster, if the same situation happens again in the future.

suggest a provision that dropping below the threshold is a valid reason for the Removal for Cause procedure. After all, for some we want to see an improvement in 90 days. For others it's pretty obvious they'll never improve and we want to see them gone sooner rather than later.
It would be a nice option and it also increases the flexibility of Standing Party system. Support here.

3. While we're at it, we don't want to accidentally resurrect demoted ANOs by pushing them over the threshold again. Demoted ANOs should be removed from the dashboard and can re-apply manually. I think this is already possible with the way it's currently worded, but let's make it more explicit.
Agree here too.
 
The intent behind this is good, namely the desire to accelerate the removal of ANOs who are not contributing as perhaps they may.

I am not sure that we really want a reduction below 90 days as a reporting frequency because it increases the administrative overhead. Much better to enable ANOs to get on with their business. However at 90 days there should be sufficient evidence submitted via a quarterly report to justify an ANOs standing.

If the reporting frequency remains the same for these reasons then the very real option must be Removal for Cause.

Our challenge is in taking these actions and moving sufficiently quickly.

Whether changing the Standing Threshold is the right way to accelerate (justified) ANO removal is something we need to think very carefully about in my opinion. The higher we raise the bar the tighter we get squeezed into a narrow performance band. It may be better to keep the band sufficiently wide so that there is latitude for performance variation which would be normal and also room for improvement which we should all seek.

One final thought is that as ANO numbers reduce then the effect of a very limited number of ANOs voting not to affirm an ANOs standing has an amplified effect. Is this the result we want?
 
Regarding the standing threshold, I think increasing the threshold at this point would not be optimal. We have reduced the number of standing parties a lot lately and it might shrink even more as the price keeps collapsing which would allow a very small set to effectively remove whoever they wanted out too easily. Not supporting an ANO for arbitrary reason would then become a big problem.

The real problem was that we had too many inactive standing parties not updating their vote and/or supporting each other out. As soon as some left, it became quite faster.
 
Additionally anything above 50% standing could create fractions where some people could play 2 different groups out and them basically starting a removal war. Removing roughly 40% standing and thus 2 times 40% of ANOs to do it, still leaves 20% that can benefit from that.

On chain you need basically 50% of ANOs, so it would be a bit odd to being able to create fractions.
 

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.
 
IMO, the approved Factom Governance Improvement Proposal provides a framework and processes to address the concerns highlighted here.

Relevant proposal highlights
*ANO standing is determined quarterly by committee-scoring of ANO Standing Review Packages
--Standing determinations are cast quarterly, either exclusively by the SC based on scoring by standing committees, or, both SC and ANOs (ANOs able to emulate the SC vote to free up time/focus)
--Scoring is validated by the SC and is transparent (scored packages available publicly)
--Packages include but not limited to monthly ANO reports (standardized), grant activity, committee participation, and secretary-included anecdotes of community participation (outreach governance, tech, etc.)
----Monthly reports would include both standardized objective content as well as subjective content

Standing is assigned by category:
1. Good Standing (80%-100% support) – 1 x vote weight
2. Improvement Needed (65-80% support) – 0.7 x vote weight
3. Underperforming (50-65% support) – 0.5 x vote weight
4. Pending Removal (below 50% support) – 0 x vote weight

Removal:
Within two weeks of the quarterly ANO standing determination release, those in the Pending Removal category will receive a virtual hearing which will consider removal, buy out, or remediation. The Steering Committee will lead this hearing using processes yet to be defined.

----------
So this corrects:
-absent ANOs' drag on governance (reduced vote standing),
-provides greater rigor and "informedness" to standing determination,
-provides transparency and standardization to the process,
-frees ANOs to focus on producing value for the community instead of researching all ANO activities and casting divisive political votes,
-system provides fair warning to underperforming ANOs,
-and provides a timely and swift process to remove those ANOs who fail to perform at acceptable levels (as defined publicly by the community through ANO expectations)
 
At this point, I don't see any reason to increase the threshold for ANOs.

I think doing so makes us look like we are trying to reduce the community rather than grow the community. I'd rather focus on how we can add people to the community, to the standing parties. And focus on adding more public protocols on top of Factom.

Increasing the threshold so we can toss out more ANOs has some poor optics. I get saving tokens, but we need to figure out how to incentivize use of our protocol, not increase the bar to participate.
 
I'm quite happy with the distribution of standing currently. It was a slow process, but I think the standing system did eventually get us where we need to be in terms of authority set composition (or will soon). I don't think we need to reduce the threshold.

The main thing I would like to change now is the 90 day removal window, which is a bit excessive for our small community. @Mike Buckingham made the important point that it would increase the reporting burden, but this is only true for ANOs that are below the standing threshold. In my view, it is not excessive for an ANO beneath the standing threshold (who wishes to regain standing) to report more frequently for that short period.

Here's a suggestion that is not necessarily well thought out that others may be able to expand on or dismiss: perhaps we could have tiered removal windows. This would give ANOs with potential an opportunity to prove themselves, while expediting removal for ANOs who are obviously not trying to turn things around.

StandingRemoval window
40% to <50%90 days
30% to <40%60 days
<30%30 days
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top