Document Discussion Doc 001 rework

This is just a discussion thread for me to share a rework we've been working on. You'll see some open comments in the document. Some explain the design decisions, whereas other comments raise questions that need answers from a bigger group.


The reasoning here is that Doc 001 needs to evolve from “a software specification” to a more elaborate view on governance that is (or aims to be) more inclusive in its stakeholder approach.

As part of that inclusivity, given the complexity and dependencies between all the documents we’ve drafted to date, it also makes sense to have Doc 001 be a proper introduction for newcomers to Factom governance.

That means it has to be fairly easy to understand for people not familiar with Factom, refer to more detailed docs when feasible, and reduce the amount of theorizing in the original doc to more accurately reflect the current situation.

It’s also an enabler for the new committee framework, which is explained here.

So for this revamp, we did a number of things (this list is far from exhaustive):

  • Added principles
  • Listed stakeholders and how we (increasingly) cater to them in this governance model. Very interestingly, it resonates quite well with the upcoming W&M research paper.
  • Explain each ‘system’ (committee, grant, standing party) as succinctly as possible.
  • Added the secretary role as the glue/oil between these systems.
  • Cleared up and professionalized a lot of text, removed much of the philosophizing and ‘Factom uses DPoS’ content.
  • Enabled the new committee system. This update introduces the Steering Council as a standing party. It also attaches the proposed vote weights to each standing party class (based on support categories). Now we're still debating how to best describe these vote weights inside the document. You'll notice open comments.
More comments are welcome. The aim is to get this Doc 001 and Doc 006 up for ratification in the coming period.
 
Last edited:
Top