Amendment DOC 002 administration of governance- and community documents

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Consensus Networks Consensus Networks CryptoLogic CryptoLogic CryptoLogic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factable Solutions Factable Solutions Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium LayerTech LayerTech Luciap Luciap Matters Matters Nic R Niels Klomp Nolan Bauer PrestigeIT PrestigeIT 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 DBGrow DBGrow

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.

CryptoLogic

Crypto Logic
Hello

as first step in removing Factom guides as ANO poll showed conssensus for we suggest removing guide from amend governance documents process. this will facilitate possibility to amend other governance document without guides (if less than 4 is elected in current election).

We propose change to DOC 002 administration of governance- and community documents by remove references to guide voting. For now kept 3/5 ANOs vote for amendment, but maybe this increased to 70% to kompensate for not guides gate keep? with new standing system expect higher participation in governance as can easyilier lose support.

have used suggestion function in google document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12nvQVDOoLFNtmV_jqFEeWo1Ixx3R08z4KqLNVEbDoU4/edit?usp=sharing

When this document changed will be easier to update other required documents to remove guide position formal, and also protect against situation with less guides then required for make governance changes.
 

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 CryptoLogic,

Thank you for doing this. In a future without guides we will need to share responsibility for governance document maintenance.

@Niels Klomp made the point that removing guides starts with amending the doc that is the basis for all other amendments, which is Doc002

@PaulSnow asked if the opposite is true, that we should trim back the role of guides from all the other processes before we shut the lights off on doc 002.

All agreed that we ought to have a plan. Therefore in parallel with this we should start to create such a plan possibly starting with resolving the above.

I can see a few issues with the Doc, such as

2.2 Ratification of a document shall undergo three distinct phases:

Ratification motion and review period
Guide-vote
ANO-vote

This should obviously now be two phases.

You may want to share the doc so that others can suggest edits to it.
 

CryptoLogic

Crypto Logic
Hi CryptoLogic,

Thank you for doing this. In a future without guides we will need to share responsibility for governance document maintenance.

@Niels Klomp made the point that removing guides starts with amending the doc that is the basis for all other amendments, which is Doc002

@PaulSnow asked if the opposite is true, that we should trim back the role of guides from all the other processes before we shut the lights off on doc 002.

All agreed that we ought to have a plan. Therefore in parallel with this we should start to create such a plan possibly starting with resolving the above.

I can see a few issues with the Doc, such as

2.2 Ratification of a document shall undergo three distinct phases:

Ratification motion and review period
Guide-vote
ANO-vote

This should obviously now be two phases.

You may want to share the doc so that others can suggest edits to it.
thank for good feedback Mike.

about discussion above (Paul, Niels), think do doc 002 first is best because it is the thing that defines who is able to amend governance. If guides votes in favor of make change to that document with implication that it is first step in remove their position then think we are on good paths to make this transition work.

Still think guides shall lead this work (make plan and time line) as they are still actual guides.

About access to document to make suggestions: this should already be on for everyone and not only us. Fixed issue you pointed out Mike.
 

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.
 
@David Chapman if amendment pass, can you please confirm factomize will update vote functionality for amend/ratify document to remove guides?
Who would be able to do that work under his current Core and General Development grant.

Please note that this will be a reasonably extensive change to logic and will take some work. And it will involve more than just the Document Ratification functionality.
 
In this post:https://factomize.com/forums/thread...e-guides-as-standing-parties.3974/#post-26006 I suggested:


"As we make the changes to the Governance Docs we should try to ensure compatibility with future standing party changes.

Can I suggest that instead of direct references to a particular standing party such as ANOs that we reference all standing parties? Assuming we have more than one standing party and that each type of standing party would need a majority vote then for a vote to pass the words could be: .."subject to all standing parties passing a majority vote in favour". This accounts for more than one standing party and different majority requirements by standing party."


If we continue to define the majority requirement by standing party in each governance document then we may well have a big job to revise these docs when a new standing party such as Token Holders is added.

This may well require us to create a new or changed Governance Doc defining standing parties AND their majorities. I don't want to create extra work but during this review of our Governance Docs we should try to make them future-proof as best we can.
 
Assuming support for compatibility with future standing party changes described above I've reviewed the Doc002 draft and would like to suggest the following changes:

Doc control matrix to state "Majority of each Standing Party" instead of "3/5 ANOs". (The majority can be defined for each Standing Party as they come into being)

1.4 Don't specify "ANOs" just leave as "Standing Parties" with a reference to where the Standing Parties are defined.

2.2 Ratification of a document shall undergo two distinct phases:
Ratification motion and review period
"Standing Party-vote" (ILO "ANO-vote")

2.4.1 Replace "ANOs" with "Standing Parties"

2.4.2 An affirmative vote by the majority of each "Standing Party" is required.....

2.7 Replace "ANO" with "Standing Party"
 
Last edited:
Mike, I'd argue that we should not change the 3/5 ANO to 3/5 of all standing parties.

In my opinion, not all standing party class are going to follow and vote on governance related manner. If we think there was apathy from ANO in regards to governance, it is going to be an even greater problem with token holders and EC users and requiring 3/5 of all standing parties is going to put us in tough spots down the line.
 
Mike, I'd argue that we should not change the 3/5 ANO to 3/5 of all standing parties.

In my opinion, not all standing party class are going to follow and vote on governance related manner. If we think there was apathy from ANO in regards to governance, it is going to be an even greater problem with token holders and EC users and requiring 3/5 of all standing parties is going to put us in tough spots down the line.
Hi Miguel,

Thank you for your response. I am not suggesting that we require 3/5 of all standing parties. I am suggesting that we require a majority vote from each standing party. I am happy that for ANOs it is 60%. For other standing parties we should agree what such a "majority" is. We should only set this once we have agreed that they will be a standing party.

I fully appreciate your points about likely engagement from other standing parties. Whilst a majority for another standing party may be anything >50%, we may even want to turn this concept round and require that there is not significant dissent. Which is why I suggested the generic wording.

I hope that clarifies my position and apologise if I was not clear enough.
 

CryptoLogic

Crypto Logic
Thank for input Mike, Miguel and Matthias.

in principle agree that generic terms should be used, but think it is not best idea to integrate it right now. There is not 1:1 mapping between current DOC001 governance document and actual current standing parties so how we know which ones are "valdid" or not? Can someone make case that usage/standing already in effect because is mentioned in DOC001 and state as standing party should have vote to change documents because standing parties mentioned here with no defition?

We think we will need better definitions and more time to proper secure we do not run into future problems by changing ANO to "standing parties" in document. it can easily be changed when add future standing party.

that is current position but willings to change opinions through discussion :)

What think current @Guides ?
 

CryptoLogic

Crypto Logic
Ok, we got no input from any @Guides or any one else since asking before weekend.

Because of this we will go with current version of proposed document which iss the one with suggestion from us, @Alex and @Samuel Vanderwaal (thank you).

since not got edit access we cannot create a google-version of document to be voted on but will ask guides to do on discord.

Thank to everyone providing feedback, and Mike thank you for suggestion. Agree that should make document refer to "standing parties" in future and not ANO specifically, but this time not clarity enough to do so we think.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
The final poll is available for Guides to vote on now for 3 days. If Guides pass the vote with 4 "Yes" votes then ANOs will be able to vote. If Guides fail to pass, there will be no further action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top