Factom leadership and decision making vote #2

Unrestricted Public Thread

  • Viewed BlockVenture Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Cube3 Cube3 De Facto De Facto Factom Inc Factom Inc Factoshi Factoshi Federate This Federate This Go Immutable HashQuark HashnStore HashnStore Kompendium Kompendium Luciap Luciap PrestigeIT PrestigeIT Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF WB
  • Not Viewed DBGrow DBGrow
The previous vote has ended and a clear majority voted in favor of keeping ANOs part of the decision-making process for community governance.

As outlined, phase two starts a preferential/ranked vote to decide on our preferred leadership framework. The outcome is there to ensure we align our efforts to create the best possible proposal and greatly increase the chance of it passing.

How this works is that the four below options will be ranked on preference by every ANO. If no first-choice option reaches a majority (more than half of all votes), the option with the lowest first-choice total is eliminated. The voters who selected the eliminated option as their first choice then have their votes added to the totals of their next choice. Rinse and repeat until an option has reached the majority.

In the unlikely event of a tie between two options - Standing Parties deliberate on how to solve that tie regardless of any tiebreaking mechanisms in software/scripts used. I say that because software tends to 'draw straws' as a tie-breaker.

These are the four options:

A1 - ANOs hold all decision making authority alone (status quo)
A2 - ANOs share decision making with a single person (e.g. a director)
A3 - ANOs share decision making with a multi-member body (e.g. a steering council)
A4 - ANOs share decision making with an entity not described in the other options

The participation quorum (50.1%) will apply for the outcome to be representative.

Here's a timeline of how this phase will progress.
  1. This discussion topic will run until the vote ends and the results have been posted. The scope of discussion is proposal agnostic and needs to be viewed in isolation of any past or future proposal details. Once we agree on leadership structure, then we make it compatible with people's wishes.
  2. After four* days, every ANO will receive a private, unique identifier for a specially created election on https://app.rankedvote.co/
    1. Full instructions will be sent along with the identifier.
    2. Please record/remember your ranking before completing the vote, so we can manually verify if needed.
    3. Options will be listed randomly for every ANO to reduce bias effects.
    4. A cast vote cannot be changed - so vote carefully.
  3. The vote will run for a maximum of three days, unless all eligible parties have cast their votes before then. The results will be made public when the vote ends.

* As a closing note, I am happy to amend the timelines and methodology if anyone has better suggestions. I'm sticking to a four day discussion initially because of all the discussion we've already had.
 
In the absence of any input, I'll kick this off and provide some thoughts:

Status quo:
  • Don't think many people find this desirable.
Multi-member body:
  • Shares the burden. Person for gov, tech, outreach. Potentially less intensive for each member - so easier to recruit.
  • Good for performance. 'Shared leadership' is acknowledged in literature and relevant here: performance, consensus, trust.
  • Good for continuity. With each member separately accountable, the machine keeps working upon removal.
  • More reliant on the experience and personality of members, as they need to be able to work together.
  • Reimbursement can be the highest, needs bonus structure with low base compensation.
Single person:
  • A lot of room for personal vision in all fields (gov, tech, outreach). But harder to recruit, ideally needs almost 100% FTE.
  • Good for performance. Can potentially make the fastest decisions if we assume no implementation delay to allow for ANO oversight.
  • Less reliant on the personality of the person.
  • Reimbursement potentially lowest, depending on how many supporting roles are hired.
  • Not as good for continuity. If the person is removed or otherwise incapacitated, the machine can grind to a halt.
Entity not described:
  • Reinstate Guides?
  • Set up a foundation?
  • Set up an actual company?
  • FPoS for on-chain governance?
 
Can't find it and why are we deviating from our normal process in one of the single most important votes in roughly 1 year?
Doc 002 specifies ranked voting as being a valid voting process. It doesn't list specifically how to organize it. There is no forum functionality for ranked voting other than the grant system.

I gave a full explanation on the proposed methodology and allowed time for anyone to weigh in. Your timing is pretty off. Everyone received a forum PM except for Matt, who disabled them.

11 votes have been cast, I'll be sending reminders. I'm also adding @Paul B. as an observer to the vote page - the results of which will be published on the 18th.
 
According to governance we need a major timed discussion first of 8 days. I am pretty sure there was a requirement for the forum vote at one point in time. Reason being very simple.

It gets anchored on the blockchain and the software is the one doing the facilitation.

I am not saying Vidale would do the next thing as i believe the best intentions. But how can we be sure everyone has given the proper time of 3 days after 8 days of discussion? How can we validate votes? How can we be sure it really was the enity voting?
 
Multiple paragraphs of V5 of Doc002 with regards to this particular vote are not being honored. Some very clear others might be more questionable. Examples are 1.1.2 in combination with 1.13, 3.3, 3.5, 6.4.1. Then 3.13 allows for another method, but that is in conflict with 1.1.2/1.13 and 3.3 together with 3.5 have not been adhered to.

Not something we should be doing if you ask me. I will cast our vote, but IMO this should have been handled differently.

Adding more barriers or changing the way votes are held on important votes is something one should have certainly considered beforehand
 
I personnally would not have minded having a public vote on this.

If it is not possible to accuratly verify the votes using the method used by Vidale, why not just ask for a public vote where everyone one publicly write their preferences on the forum and manually tally it afterwards?
 
Yes agree.

Above all my main problem is that we should have had a discussion in the open about how we wanted to vote on this, instead of just choosing a method that deviates from what we have done till date, which might have ramifications (I would almost have missed it for instance, no 8 days of discussion, discussion still open during vote)
 
Well that is not how this will pan out in reality of course. We had a proposal for a council, we had a proposal to start working on a director approach.

Then we had a multi-phase proposal for ANOs being involved using normal forum voting procedure, with this one comming after it. The outcome of this poll will very much decide which direction this protocol will move forward. If it would be the time for quick snapshot polls, the previous poll could have be ran with 2 questions.
 
Multiple paragraphs of V5 of Doc002 with regards to this particular vote are not being honored. Some very clear others might be more questionable. Examples are 1.1.2 in combination with 1.13, 3.3, 3.5, 6.4.1. Then 3.13 allows for another method, but that is in conflict with 1.1.2/1.13 and 3.3 together with 3.5 have not been adhered to.

Not something we should be doing if you ask me. I will cast our vote, but IMO this should have been handled differently.

Adding more barriers or changing the way votes are held on important votes is something one should have certainly considered beforehand
Okay, this is a lot to unpack, but I'll give it a shot:

If you mean 1.12 and 1.13, those are definitions. A parliamentary authority is referred to when a document offers no clarity on a situation. Our parliamentary authority lists preferential voting in the same way as the methodology used for this vote (rank options in order of preference. If no majority is immediately clear, eliminate lowest option and recount). Even if it didn't, the parliamentary authority isn't binding.

Whether this should have been a 'minor' or 'major' discussion is at the discretion of whoever starts a vote like this (unless it's a for a defined, standard procedure like grants). That's why we have extensions if people disagree. This is phase two of the same vote, we had a LOT of preliminary thinking and discussion already. So you would think the set four days were sufficient.

I also agree with @Colin Campbell that this is meant as a snapshot to stop wasting time on proposals that won't make it.

As for 3.5 - the vote window is actually a little longer than three days. The last identifier was went out Jan 14th, 5:16 PM. Votes close Jan 18th 00:00 or as soon as we have all 18 votes accounted for.

Yes 3.13 allows for another community platform if the present one isn't suitable.

How can we be sure it really was the enity voting?
The app tracks duplicate voting from the same IP. Identifiers were sent exclusively to the right people. Their accounts would need to be compromised, which is a risk similar to what we have on this forum. Every vote can only be casted once, so anyone is free to verify by logging into the app. If you can still vote, it hasn't been compromised. If it says you already voted and you think you didn't, check with your team members first.

This is pretty straight-forward and I specifically asked for ANY input on other suggestions last Sunday.
 
Whether this should have been a 'minor' or 'major' discussion is at the discretion of whoever starts a vote like this (unless it's a for a defined, standard procedure like grants). That's why we have extensions if people disagree. This is phase two of the same vote, we had a LOT of preliminary thinking and discussion already. So you would think the set four days were sufficient.
Well it is not really the same vote is it? Otherwise they would have ran together?

Point being. In important decision making times like these it is best to follow what we have been doing till date to the letter. The fact you find four days sufficient, doesn't mean from a protocol perspective this is a big junction point and thus simply should be a major discussion according to doc 2.

The app tracks duplicate voting from the same IP. Identifiers were sent exclusively to the right people
Where can I track that?
Their accounts would need to be compromised, which is a risk similar to what we have on this forum.
Forum can have 2FA and doesn't have somebody in between sending out the codes
Every vote can only be casted once, so anyone is free to verify by logging into the app. If you can still vote, it hasn't been compromised. If it says you already voted and you think you didn't, check with your team members first.
So I can use another IP?

This is pretty straight-forward and I specifically asked for ANY input on other suggestions last Sunday.
Yupz, one of the biggest votes we had last year with the exception of Guide removal probably and we are deviating from what we have done till date.

I will stop complaining. But I hope at least some people can acknowledge that we should have proper discussions first if we want to do votes in another way then what we have been doing 100% of the time. Just saying that it is een quick type of poll is ridiculous. You don't create flow diagrams for these.
 
Yes agree.

Above all my main problem is that we should have had a discussion in the open about how we wanted to vote on this, instead of just choosing a method that deviates from what we have done till date, which might have ramifications (I would almost have missed it for instance, no 8 days of discussion, discussion still open during vote)
Just so people appreciate some of the cherry-picking that's going on here.

The first Director vote was arguably just as important and set up for similar reasons - but wasn't set up properly. Individual members were voting instead of ANOs, and no notifications are sent that way, hence the poor turnout.

Meanwhile on Discord:

fhu32hfu2hf32.png


I don't really mind, but I find the contrast pretty funny.
 
Just so people appreciate some of the cherry-picking that's going on here.

The first Director vote was arguably just as important and set up for similar reasons - but wasn't set up properly. Individual members were voting instead of ANOs, and no notifications are sent that way, hence the poor turnout.

Meanwhile on Discord:

View attachment 2841

I don't really mind, but I find the contrast pretty funny.
The screenshot literally says "informal"!!

So we had a standalone formal vote for a council, followed by an informal vote for a director to gauge whether it makes sense to put in some work by @Matt Osborne to which a Governance WG member replied.

Then the 2 phase vote comes in from members of the Governance WG what direction we would like to see (ANOs involved or not and Council, Director, Current ways or something else). Which dictates direction for the protocol and means we will see one proposal and vote in the end approving the council members or director with some governance doc attached (I don't believe the other options are viable). But now we are downplaying the vote initiated by members of the Governance WG for the direction of the protocol for which we had a flowchart and document as something informal? Yupz makes total sense
 
Last edited:
To be clear, I get people are done with all the back and forth about governance. The important thing here is that we had a formal proposal from the Governance WG for a council with committees which didn't make it. We had an informal vote from Matt for a director approach. That has seen resistance from several members of the Governance WG. I get that, because it is another direction than what has been proposed in that group. It clearly stated "informal" and based on the outcome Matt decides to move forward with putting in some work, which I understand, because the votes that did came in were in favor (which doesn't say anything about whether a proposal like that will make it to be clear). A member of the governance WG then steps in and tries to mold an informal vote (it is literally in the title) into something formal.

Now we have 2 votes initiated by members of the Governance WG, complete with flowcharts etc. 1st vote followed normal voting procedure. 2nd vote deviates from what we have always done. Then critical questions come in and all of a sudden the vote should not be really seen as a formal vote anymore.

Except:
  • It was initiated by members of the Governance WG
  • The outcome clearly dictates direction
  • One member of the Governance WG tried to make a clearly visible informal vote into something formal and now other members of the same WG, say that what seems very formal at the start isn't formal.

I am not here to argue. It is just odd that said members of the Governance WG cannot just acknowledge that maybe it should have been handled a bit differently and certainly don't downplay a vote that indicates direction. Thank you
 
Last edited:
Then critical questions come in and all of a sudden the vote should not be really seen as a formal vote anymore.
Sure it is. And a formal vote needs to lead to an outcome, which is listed in the OP. An outcome can be hard: "immediately install a committee/immediately ratify this doc" or in this case, soft: "ensure we align our efforts to create the best possible proposal and greatly increase the chance of it passing."

Hence me saying that this is to hopefully have us stop wasting time. After these votes, anyone in the community has a mandate to build a proposal around what we've come to agree on. And that builds around integrity. So yes, the 'council group' would respect the outcome of this vote for any future document ratifications in a bid to put an end to these critical 'factions'. No, we can't bind anyone during an actual document ratification.

I am not here to argue.
Ah, a typical Klompism. ;)
 
Yeah, guess somebody that cares about the protocol and that sees the WG responsible with governance and against another proposal following the line that is in their best interst whilst at the same time deviating from normal paths needs another framed answer. Tongue in cheek again i guess...
 
Guess the screenshot together with me almost missing it is proves my point. If you look at the invitation to vote it is not immediately clear it was an invitation for the ANO to vote as a whole, so you get situations like these (not to mention that Sebastian in our case can vote on behalf of BIF, but now was not invited personally (mentioned Sander before, but that was a mistake)).

The invitation didn't link to the vote thread as well, so there is also the possibility someone voted uninformed
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top