Ratified Doc 153 - Grants - 2019-01

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining Brian Deery BuildingIM BuildingIM Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers CryptoLogic CryptoLogic Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factomatic Factomatic Factomize Factomize Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashnStore HashnStore Julian Fletcher-Taylor LayerTech LayerTech Luciap Luciap Matters Matters Multicoin Capital Multicoin Capital Niels Klomp PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Quintilian RewardChain RewardChain Samuel Vanderwaal 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 Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Timed Discussion

Discussion ended:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if Doc 153 specified a 2, 6, 20 or 500 day discussion period this would not be in conflict with Doc 002, as Doc 002 is only valid in reference to the creation/amendment/removal-process of community documents, and not for the upcoming grant round which will be done in accordance with Doc 153 (if ratified).
Mixed signals. Can't tell of Doc 002 applies or does not apply, but you later say it does, right after here saying it doesn't.

I will post toward the end of discussions I care about a link to threads where the discussion can continue, if anyone cares as well. Sometimes bureaucracies are easier to walk around than to reason with.
 
Mixed signals. Can't tell of Doc 002 applies or does not apply, but you later say it does, right after here saying it doesn't.

I will post toward the end of discussions I care about a link to threads where the discussion can continue, if anyone cares as well. Sometimes bureaucracies are easier to walk around than to reason with.
If there's confusion we can work to make things more clear and explicit. I realize our processes can improve a lot. However, don't confuse bureaucracy with the simple fact that not everyone shares your opinion.
 
Mixed signals. Can't tell of Doc 002 applies or does not apply, but you later say it does, right after here saying it doesn't.

I will post toward the end of discussions I care about a link to threads where the discussion can continue, if anyone cares as well. Sometimes bureaucracies are easier to walk around than to reason with.
Doc 002 covers the ratification/amendment of community documents. The process we are currently going through is covered by it. It mandates an 8 day discussion period.

Doc 153 which we are currently creating will dictate the framework for the Grant process, including how long the discussion period for the grant review process will be.

There is nothing more to it.

Can the header logo used on this Doc-153 be updated with something more modern? The Federation logo name is out of date and incorrect. The marketing committee has been working on a new protocol logo, last iteration I've seen is attached.
Sure. Just provide me with it when it is available and I will update the document template. The current template is based on the Factom Governance Document which sports the "federation" version.
 
Doc 002 covers the ratification/amendment of community documents. The process we are currently going through is covered by it. It mandates an 8 day discussion period.

Doc 153 which we are currently creating will dictate the framework for the Grant process, including how long the discussion period for the grant review process will be.

There is nothing more to it.
Then the closing of the discussion with the start of the vote isn't dictated by Doc 002? Or it is?
 
Can the header logo used on this Doc-153 be updated with something more modern? The Federation logo name is out of date and incorrect. The marketing committee has been working on a new protocol logo, last iteration I've seen is attached.
Let's wait until the marketing committee provides an official final logo and then we'll update the template so new documents going forward have it. The logo you uploaded doesn't seem to scale real well.
 
If there's confusion we can work to make things more clear and explicit. I realize our processes can improve a lot. However, don't confuse bureaucracy with the simple fact that not everyone shares your opinion.
It feels like bureacracy when it is confusing about what process and what document has to be changed, or where and when it is proper (allowed) to have a discussion as opposed to the idea (agree or disagree).

Note. We are talking about where/when/how to discuss my point, not the merits of my opinion. I don't see anything in the last few points I made where I defended my opinion. But my opinion is that discussions should be allowed to continue, and there is a way to do that, so I think I am happy. I really don't want to engage a complicated process to try (in my opinion, maybe not shared) to fix things.
 
Then the closing of the discussion with the start of the vote isn't dictated by Doc 002? Or it is?
In reference to the grant application review discussion, Doc 002 does not apply (as I have stated multiple times).

I'll quote my response to you yesterday:

(...)
2) The discussion timeframe for the individual grant applications in the coming grant round in the document currently being ratified:

- At 2019-01-31 00:00 the public discussion on the grants will be opened via threads on the Factomize forum.
This is the start of the public questions and review process by means of discussion on the Factomize forum (Section 4.6). The grant proposal can be amended/updated during that time by the grant proposal creator based on input from the community. Any such edits shall be described in the ORIGINAL grant-proposal post preceded by this text:
“GRANT PROPOSAL EDITED YYYY-MM-DD:”
- At 2019-02-08 23:59 the public discussion will be closed.


You are stating that we should keep the discussion in this thread due to it being relevant for this document. Only 2) above is relevant in reference to Doc 153, but I am happy to discuss that.

The reason we have stated that discussion closes before voting is that parties voting should not be swayed by questions and comments during the voting period, as the grant applications might not have the ability to answer before standing parties start to vote.

If there is community support for amending Doc 153 to allow for discussion during the voting period I'd be happy to facilitate the change.

So yes, I am happy to discuss the amending of the relevant part of doc 153 (blue text above) to change it so the discussion of the grants are also open during voting.
 
Which discussion, this one or discussions regarding specific grants?
I have a solution from my perspective. I happened to have made an observation on a grant late in the process and the grantee could not respond. They felt very violated. But I didn't have any time to post until then, and had (mistakenly) thought there was more time to comment. Others have complained about not being able to respond to something.

But if we get a link to another thread on grants I am concerned about (others can do the same thing) then discussions can continue for completeness. If someone wants to spend the time and energy to change the general process, I'll happily support them, but I really view that process (of changing multiple documents) as too hard to take on myself.
 
Last edited:
I have a solution from my perspective. I happened to have made an observation on a grant late in the process and the grantee could not respond. They felt very violated. But I didn't have any time to post until then, and had (mistakenly) thought there was more time to comment. Others have complained about not being able to respond to something.

But if we get a link to another thread on threads I am concerned about (others can do the same thing) then discussions can continue for completeness. If someone wants to spend the time and energy to change the general process, I'll happily support them, but I really view that process as too hard to take on myself.
Paul, for the grants you just need to change this:

- At 2019-01-31 00:00 the public discussion on the grants will be opened via threads on the Factomize forum.
This is the start of the public questions and review process by means of discussion on the Factomize forum (Section 4.6). The grant proposal can be amended/updated during that time by the grant proposal creator based on input from the community. Any such edits shall be described in the ORIGINAL grant-proposal post preceded by this text:
“GRANT PROPOSAL EDITED YYYY-MM-DD:”


- At 2019-02-08 23:59 the public discussion will be closed.

The reason Is that Doc 153 governs the timeline of the grant discussion period - and we are still able to make changes to Doc 153 for another 23 hours before it comes to a vote.

I suggest that we create an informal poll to gauge the community's view on this, and if a majority wishes the discussion to be open during and after voting we'll just remove the last sentence above.
 
In reference to the grant application review discussion, Doc 002 does not apply (as I have stated multiple times).

I'll quote my response to you yesterday:

So yes, I am happy to discuss the amending of the relevant part of doc 153 (blue text above) to change it so the discussion of the grants are also open during voting.
I think that fixing the discussions of the grants themselves is more important than fixing the discussions on this doc 153.

A work around both problems is to post a link to an ongoing informal discussion thread, so I'm happy to use that method when I am paying attention.

I'm sorry that reading the blue text and the use of pronouns, and a distinction between governance documents and other kinds of documents and votes didn't seem clear to me (in the context of Doc 002 vs grant appolications). Mostly because if I wrote a document about voting (doc 002), I wouldn't have restricted it to a kind of voting subject, so I kept missing your point due to my on bias for simplicity, And I didn't go back and read doc 002.

Anyway, really, I am done. I didn't mean to get in a long conversation about how to discuss a problem I have with the process around grant 3, setting up the rules for grant 3, and I certainly don't want to irritate the people that are doing the good work of getting this process in place and going.

This really wasn't my intention.
 
I have a solution from my perspective. I happened to have made an observation on a grant late in the process and the grantee could not respond. They felt very violated. But I didn't have any time to post until then, and had (mistakenly) thought there was more time to comment. Others have complained about not being able to respond to something.

But if we get a link to another thread on threads I am concerned about (others can do the same thing) then discussions can continue for completeness. If someone wants to spend the time and energy to change the general process, I'll happily support them, but I really view that process as too hard to take on myself.
It didn't seem to be a large issue during the last round as most people seemed to track the deadlines fairly well. It helps that there's a clock at the top of the page that displays the deadline in your local timezone. If this is a larger problem than I realize we can certainly address it.
 
I would just like to mention that we did an unofficial poll at Discord and there was 1 vote for continuing the discussion during voting and 10 votes against.

As the standing parties clearly prefers that the discussion ends prior to voting this is the solution that will be put up for ratification.


Thanks to everyone that has participated in the discussion so far and who voted in the poll.


Edit:

Also added an "example scoring sheet" to Doc 153, Appendix C. Please review it and if something is unclear lets discuss it before the document goes up for ratification in 6-7 hours.

Note that if you abstain it doesn't matter if you approve/disapprove as this does not get taken into consideration when tallying the votes anyway.

Also: Voters can technically disapprove a grant they rank highly (Acme ChainBlock Wallet is below ranked 2, but not "approved"), but this would be against their own interests and it is not likely that it will happen. Adding a rule that you "you must approve all grants above your first ranked disapproval" seems excessive and would just add to the confusion I believe.

scoring-sheet-example.png
 
Last edited:

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