Ratified Doc 007 - Testnet Governance (v1.1)

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 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 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 CryptoLogic CryptoLogic

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


All votes are in

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Standing Parties,

During the process of initiating a Testnet Administrator election it was realized that there is an issue in the process as described in Annex 8 in the Testnet Governance Document.

The short version is that the main body of Doc 007 states that the Testnet Administrator is elected/removed by the full Standing Parties, while Appendix 8 (the actual description of the process) only states that Authority Node Operators are eligible to participate in the vote.

Section 7 and 8 of the document:

1576748230134.png


Appendix 8

1576748282252.png



This has to be rectified prior to a Testnet Administrator election being held, so I'm thus putting Doc 007 up for amendment by the Factom Standing parties in accordance with Doc 002 (Administration of Governance and community documents).

I have added the proposed changes to Doc 007 - Testnet Governance as suggestions in the document. The changes are limited to allowing Guides to vote along with the ANOs.

Guides and ANOs; please review these changes and provide any input during the discussion phase. After that concludes the document will be moved to a vote which requires 4/5 Guide approval and 60% approval by the ANOs to pass.



@David Chapman:
Are you happy with the process in 1.1.4 (creating a temporary subform for candidates), or would you prefer that we use a single thread in the governance section created by the Guides, and where candidates just adds a reply in the thread instead with their intention to run? Seems a bit simpler to me.



----
The 42nd Factoid AS
Tor Hogne
 

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.
 
@David Chapman:
Are you happy with the process in 1.1.4 (creating a temporary subform for candidates), or would you prefer that we use a single thread in the governance section created by the Guides, and where candidates just adds a reply in the thread instead with their intention to run? Seems a bit simpler to me.
It's easy to setup subforums but I suspect a thread would be more than sufficient... Either way is fine for Factomize.
 

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.
 
Why would we amend the document to highlight “ANOs and Guides” instead of “Standing Parties”? Standing Parties are already referenced earlier in the document. Assuming we can ever get to a point where we expand the Standing Parties, we’re going to have to go back and update this document. Seems like we’re only setting ourselves up for a repeat situation to me. Should we get to a point where the Standing Parties are expanded, and incorporated verbiage for “Standing Parties” instead of “ANOs and Guides”, we will not have to worry about ratifying this document.
 
Why would we amend the document to highlight “ANOs and Guides” instead of “Standing Parties”? Standing Parties are already referenced earlier in the document. Assuming we can ever get to a point where we expand the Standing Parties, we’re going to have to go back and update this document. Seems like we’re only setting ourselves up for a repeat situation to me. Should we get to a point where the Standing Parties are expanded, and incorporated verbiage for “Standing Parties” instead of “ANOs and Guides”, we will not have to worry about ratifying this document.
Defining "Guides + ANOs" directly is deliberately done and there is precedent for doing so in most of our governance documents.

The reasoning behind this is that we don't want to find ourselves in a situation where for example every staking address is defined as "one entity" in these votes. In such a situation somebody could generate 1000 addresses with 0.1 FCT in them and they would have 1000 votes, while the grand total of guide+ANO votes are 31. To completely mitigate this you would have to design the paragraph in a way that properly takes this into consideration, and that is very hard to do considering we don't know what form future standing parties will take.

So it's a conscious choice, and in the future when we add more standing parties we can easily amend the required processes to include the new standing parties in a suitable fashion.
 
I’ll concede this one, but the issue with multiple addresses sounds like something that needs to be addressed in how we expand the Standing Parties to allow staking (assuming we do), not hold all other governance hostage until we figure out a solution. The way I see this document, the intent is to allow Standing Parties to vote in a Testnet Administrator.

Let the discussion and subsequent process to expand the Standing Parties deal with the control measures to ensure the staking entities are not provided a means through which they can abuse the process. If we cannot find a viable solution, then we can decide to amend the documents to be specific to who can/cannot vote. That opens up another question of intention of the governance and would be a discussion that derails the intended amendment here.

For the sake of time, I will support the amendment of this document so we can get a Testnet Administrator established.
 
I’ll concede this one, but the issue with multiple addresses sounds like something that needs to be addressed in how we expand the Standing Parties to allow staking (assuming we do), not hold all other governance hostage until we figure out a solution. The way I see this document, the intent is to allow Standing Parties to vote in a Testnet Administrator.

Let the discussion and subsequent process to expand the Standing Parties deal with the control measures to ensure the staking entities are not provided a means through which they can abuse the process. If we cannot find a viable solution, then we can decide to amend the documents to be specific to who can/cannot vote. That opens up another question of intention of the governance and would be a discussion that derails the intended amendment here.

For the sake of time, I will support the amendment of this document so we can get a Testnet Administrator established.
You said it yourself;
the issue with multiple addresses sounds like something that needs to be addressed in how we expand the Standing Parties to allow staking (assuming we do),
.

Before we address it we can't expose all our stand-alone processes to the risk of this not being handled correctly (because the ramifications would be so big), so we play it safe until we expand the standing parties and then update the relevant processes in tandem with the new standing parties. It's not about "holding governance hostage", but ensuring we handle it in a way that doesn't expose the protocol to unnecessary risks.
 

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