Doc 100 Amendment - No minimal threshold to being a Guide

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 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 Matt Osborne Matters Matters 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

Add section 3.3.3.7 to Doc 100


Have not voted

Authority Nodes Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Federate This Federate This The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi everyone.
I just reviewed Doc 100. Unless I missed something, we don't have a minimum voting threshold a Guide needs to meet in order to become a Guide. Example: If a potential Guide applicant receives a single vote, then this applicant can become a Guide (assume we only have 5 Guide candidates). I don't think any of us want an unqualified candidate becoming a Guide. One could argue this is also an attack vector also.

While this amendment may prove to be unneeded if the standing parties decide to remove the Guide position altogether per this major timed discussions
https://factomize.com/forums/threads/proposal-to-remove-the-guide-position.3820/#post-25418 ,

it's our feeling that we should put in a minimal approval percentage needed for a Guide to be elected. We'd suggest the criteria mirror the Governance ratification percentage of 3/5ths of ANOs voting in favor for.

Here is the proposed amendment (happy to change language):

Screen Shot 2020-02-22 at 1.18.08 PM.png
 

Attachments

Chappie

Factomize Bot
This thread is a Major 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 may 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 and if a majority of voters vote yes by the time the discussion is scheduled to end, the time period will be extended for 72 hours.
 
The threshold of 60% seems fairly high in the case where we might have a large number of Guide candidates, e.g. 10-15. Even though ANOs can vote for as many candidates as they want, a large number of candidates could split the vote so no one gets above the threshold. I think it should be a simple 51% majority, or two-thirds with ANOs only being able to vote for up to five candidates, or have two separate thresholds: one for five or more Guide applicants and one for less than that amount.

Thoughts?
 
I like Sam’s proposal here.

On the too many candidates to meet the threshold topic, we do have provisions for a tie already written. We can add a paragraph stating that should no threshold become achieved the vote moves on to a runoff of some kind? Wouldn’t RBV also provide a solution to this potential, albeit unlikely situation?
 

CryptoLogic

Crypto Logic
Factomize already support approve/disapprove for grants, so when voting for guides this could be additional option (identical to grant voteing), so in addition to "vote for" ANOs also select approve/not approve with minimum threshold 51%.
 
I really like the suggestion that CryptoLogic has made of having an approve/disapprove option.

The more I think about it, we effectively have a certain amount to spend (or should I say invest) in candidates. Therefore it seems wholly appropriate to use a very similar system to that which we use for grants.

Under this system we would have an approve/disapprove option and also an ability to rank the candidates so that we could see their position in relation to a cut-off. The cut-off would in this instance be the number of guide positions available.

The ranking would do away with the need to think about threshold for votes. However the approve disapprove would require a threshold. Given that this would be a judgement about candidate capability it would seem to make sense that this should have a higher threshold of say around 60%.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
We are now 18 hours into the discussion. You may now make a motion to extend this Major 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.
 

Chappie

Factomize Bot
HashQuark 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
PaulSnow 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.
 
Under this system we would have an approve/disapprove option and also an ability to rank the candidates so that we could see their position in relation to a cut-off. The cut-off would in this instance be the number of guide positions available.

The ranking would do away with the need to think about threshold for votes. However the approve disapprove would require a threshold. Given that this would be a judgement about candidate capability it would seem to make sense that this should have a higher threshold of say around 60%.
While I like the idea above as I feel it would simplify this and other processes, I'm unable to easily think through how to adopt such a system in a situation with undesirable guide candidates.
We could have a "qualifying" round like a primary election with a second follow-on election, or instead a qualification process where a candidate would need a curtaining amount of "standing" as a proxy for ballot signatures to qualify to run. However, by doing these extra processes we're adding more complexity and therefore the initial appeal of his idea is reduced for me. Going with a 51% solution is likely the easiest and most practical way forward; however, with this basic majority we could get guides with ~49% "disapproval."

On a separate and larger note:
I do believe we need an option on all voting matters on Factomize to disapprove or have a negative vote.
In many matters on Factomize, we are limited to a choice structure of approve or abstain. We need a disapprove option to better align voting options.
 
Hi Jason,

Thank you for your comment.

Wouldn't a requirement for any one candidate to achieve more than, say, a 60% score on approve/disapprove meet your need for qualification? I don't think we need to add in more complexity to do this because it could be handled in one vote/election. However I do agree that more thought may need to be applied to all voting matters in general; but that is not the purpose here and may need to be the subject of another post.

Meanwhile I can understand the need to keep this simple and am supportive of a step to a 51% of the vote for now.
 
Hi Jason,

Thank you for your comment.

Wouldn't a requirement for any one candidate to achieve more than, say, a 60% score on approve/disapprove meet your need for qualification? I don't think we need to add in more complexity to do this because it could be handled in one vote/election. However I do agree that more thought may need to be applied to all voting matters in general; but that is not the purpose here and may need to be the subject of another post.

Meanwhile I can understand the need to keep this simple and am supportive of a step to a 51% of the vote for now.
I agree with both you and Paul. That’s why I too suggested 51% is probably the best way to go. 📝
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top