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 results are in:

Here's the breakdown for those who won't click the link:

jf23ijih2.png

The winner (multi-member body) reached the required majority for IRV straight from the start (half + 1). There were no further rounds necessary. But the script still did it anyway.

Subsequent rounds automatically tried to find follow-up winners (this was a single-winner election, so there are none). The lowest option (status quo) was eliminated first, but there were no votes to redistribute. The second lowest option (other structure) was eliminated next and its votes were redistributed to find the next winner (went to single-member because multi-member was already a winner).

Fifteen ANOs voted, so that means the quorum was hit. After this publication, I guess I could check who the non-voters were, but I didn't want to mess with anything during the vote.

There's some thinking to do now that the 'single-person' proposal is already up. Based on people's preferences, and because the 'council group' wanted to honor any outcome, we're risking another stalemate. More on that later!
 
Then there's the million-dollar-question. Is this a 'formal' poll? Let me just reiterate the desired outcome:

Ensure we align our efforts to create the best possible proposal and greatly increase the chance of it passing.

This is a formal poll with a soft outcome. But regardless of how we slice it, a majority simply prefers a multi-member structure. There is no binding action to take, but we need to take it seriously and determine individually how to interpret this like the 'council group' committed to. That allowed for some liberties in the spirit of getting the best possible result. Like:

1. I'm not a Standing Party, so I can't start votes. But because this is a phased vote, one can interpret that this is a follow-up to the original vote started by Cube3.
2. This is the first time we've done a preferential vote outside the grant system. Doc 002 is therefore not yet entirely clear with regards to them. Ranked voting in the grant system supposedly uses a Condorcet method - but that was never the best fit for this situation. So after consulting our adopted parliamentary authority - I went with IRV which has the most resistance to tactical voting. We don't need any of that right now.
3. Include tokenholders/EC users in the vote as some people suggested. I decided against it (and so I couldn't vote either) because we don't know their involvement in any preliminary discussions and it's harder to organize.
 
Last edited:
Since this was a non-formal poll, outside the official governance, and the aim was "Ensure we align our efforts to create the best possible proposal and greatly increase the chance of it passing" (and I assume 'our' means the Factom community), why did you decide not include the tokenholders?
Now we're again not including them for consultation in one of the most important decisions!
 
Could you please share the vote outcome per ANO as was discussed in this thread?
We discussed if I'd share the results page or if you'd just 'hear' it through me or Paul. Individual results aren't available. Not to me either. Everything gets aggregated upon submission. We also don't reveal individual ANO rankings for grants.

Why did you decide not include the tokenholders?
Now we're again not including them for consultation in one of the most important decisions!
Not for votes. This is to help get a final proposal passed. That means that if results are aggregated, we need a restricted view of what ANOs prefer, because tokenholders don't vote on proposals.

Even if you'd include tokenholders, how many? Which ones? Why only for this vote? Would you find tokenholders that lean closely to you? Or I'll find the ones that lean closely to me? We don't have enough tokenholder participation for the law of averages to cancel that kind of tactical voting out. Which again, we need none of that right now.

In the future, I highly recommend people bring this up when you can still influence it. The first topic on December 29th already clearly stated that ANOs would be ranking the options, and it clearly stated the method used. And I put my own considerations up for debate immediately. So please no excuses about 'not enough time'.
 
We discussed if I'd share the results page or if you'd just 'hear' it through me or Paul. Individual results aren't available. Not to me either. Everything gets aggregated upon submission. We also don't reveal individual ANO rankings for grants.
Yes we do and there is this:
1610974228598.png

everyone will see who vote what afterwerds? I asked that very specifically because I find it rather important to know which entities voted for what. Guess it all boils down to the fact that a proper discussion on how to handle the vote itself should have been had instead of this mess with a 2 phase vote of which vote 1 was formal, and everybody already could simply give the outcome, the 2nd vote which is preferential and didn't allow parties to remove a vote-option of the table altogether using a different system and with an invitation that wasn't pointing to this thread at all.

We know 3 entities didn't vote, but what everyone voted exactly is still a mystery
 
Yes we do and there is this:
So if I want to see how individual ANOs ranked my last grant, where do I do that? Honest question, never knew that was possible.

And I find it rather important to know which entities voted for what. Guess it all boils down to the fact that a proper discussion on how to handle the vote itself should have been had instead of this mess with a 2 phase vote which was formal, and everybody already could simply give the outcome, the 2nd vote which is preferential and didn't allow parties to remove a vote-option of the table altogether
If you're not discussing this when you can actually have the discussion, then what more can I do?

IRV is a fantastic preferential vote method that takes less time and is very resistant to tactical voting. Very important for us right now! Here’s an opinion piece published by ‘our’ university partner, W&M:

 
We discussed if I'd share the results page or if you'd just 'hear' it through me or Paul. Individual results aren't available. Not to me either. Everything gets aggregated upon submission. We also don't reveal individual ANO rankings for grants.



Not for votes. This is to help get a final proposal passed. That means that if results are aggregated, we need a restricted view of what ANOs prefer, because tokenholders don't vote on proposals.
Yet the 2nd vote wasn't a majority vote and I already expressed the exact same concern back then.


Even if you'd include tokenholders, how many? Which ones? Why only for this vote? Would you find tokenholders that lean closely to you? Or I'll find the ones that lean closely to me? We don't have enough tokenholder participation for the law of averages to cancel that kind of tactical voting out. Which again, we need none of that right now.
Given a preferential vote isn't a formal expression of a Standing party's vote, I think it would make sense to listen to the users we know. There is something like 20-30 people that have a "regular" interaction.

In the future, I highly recommend people bring this up when you can still influence it. The first topic on December 29th already clearly stated that ANOs would be ranking the options, and it clearly stated the method used. And I put my own considerations up for debate immediately. So please no excuses about 'not enough time'.
That has happened and with the 2nd vote there was apparently something like 3 days to do it. It even took me by surprise whilst I am following threads more closely. Can we just agree that this simply should have been handled differently?
 
So if I want to see how individual ANOs ranked my last grant, where do I do that?
In the vote logs! https://forum.factomprotocol.org/grant-pool/grant-rounds/9/ -> Go to the bottom
https://forum.factomprotocol.org/grants/votes/9/14/ano/ There you can see we put your grant at position 3 and approved it.



If you're not discussing this when you can actually have the discussion, then what more can I do?
What. I get confronted with an outstanding vote. I express all kinds of concerns, but decide to vote after you affirmed that the vote outcome will be public. Now I get the argument that I wasn't discussing.

IRV is a fantastic preferential vote method that takes less time and is very resistant to tactical voting. Very important for us right now! Here’s an opinion piece published by ‘our’ university partner, W&M:

I know what IRV is. Why do you believe we have a similar system for grants? Except in our case you want to know what ANOs voted like we do for other votes, and which I was under the impression would happen, given I explicitly asked for it.
 
What. I get confronted with an outstanding vote. I express all kinds of concerts, but decide to vote after you affirmed that the vote outcome will be public. Now I get the argument that I wasn't discussing.
You said that a proper discussion should have been had. A proper discussion means there should be time to make amendments before the voting starts, for which there was plenty of opportunity.

I just don't understand why I need a question like "why not involve tokenholders?" now instead of two weeks ago. It's just way more productive if we have this kind of discussion upfront so we can agree on an approach and be responsible together.

Sweet. Honestly never knew this. Guess I'm blind to some of Chappie's messages.

That's why I submitted to the anonymous nature very early on. There's no feature that allows me to check individual votes. That's the mix-up of our earlier conversation. You'd get access to the exact same results as me.

However, considering the above, I immediately reached out to the admin and he provided me with the raw data.

Candidate IDs:
  • 6023 = ANOs hold all decision making authority alone (status quo)
  • 6024 = ANOs share decision making with a single person (e.g. a director)
  • 6025 = ANOs share decision making with a multi-member body (e.g. a council)
  • 6026 = ANOs share decision making with an entity not described in the other options
One strange anomaly in there, namely that only Colin's #1 choice is recorded.

Non-voters were: Dbgrow, VBIF, Hashquark.
 
You said that a proper discussion should have been had. A proper discussion means there should be time to make amendments before the voting starts, for which there was plenty of opportunity.

I just don't understand why I need a question like "why not involve tokenholders?" now instead of two weeks ago. It's just way more productive if we have this kind of discussion upfront so we can agree on an approach and be responsible together.
I specifically mentioned to include non-tokenholders in the vote at that time though. And to be honest, nobody except maybe members of the governance WG knew at the time that the 2nd vote would deviate from how we have always been voting, unless I must have missed something completely.

One strange anomaly in there, namely that only Colin's #1 choice is recorded.
Thx.
Saul as well btw

Non-voters were: Dbgrow, VBIF, Hashquark.
Thanks, guess that would give Hashquark a very interesting position 😂
 
And to be honest, nobody except maybe members of the governance WG knew at the time that the 2nd vote would deviate from how we have always been voting, unless I must have missed something completely.
It did say this: "We will start a preferential vote which uses instant-runoff voting (IRV). The forum has no built-in functionality for this, so it will be done manually and verified through a script. This may be a bit “clunky”, more details to provide complete transparency will shortly be provided."

That's really what we ended up doing. Send and track all invites manually, calculate/verify through the app. Could it have been more detailed? Yes, but it's a tough balance. Generally, the more detail, the less people read. :cautious:

Thanks, guess that would give Hashquark a very interesting position 😂
Yeah, that would be the icing on the cake for me to show just how evenly divided we tend to be.

Thx.
Saul as well btw
There's a second page.

As for the outcome of this vote, I think it shows both options can pass, but there's still a lot of stalemate potential. Any option that passes in a proposal disenfranchises the top choice of a large percentage. This is normal, and in any democracy it's something people have to accept, but in this particular case where we want as many parties as possible trusting a new leadership system, it's not ideal.

We'll think about what to do.
 
So the vote ended at 8/7 with DBgrow not voting but somewhat indicated they would be in favor of the Director proposal in the other thread ? Pretty much, yet, an other stalemate to me here.

Seems like we are not going to get out of this governance stalemate anything soon. How hard (cost and time) would it be to implement token voting? I just don't see how this can be resolved if no ANOs gives in...
 
Seems like we are not going to get out of this governance stalemate anything soon. How hard (cost and time) would it be to implement token voting? I just don't see how this can be resolved if no ANOs gives in...
I think it really depends on what happens with the Resource Director proposal. If that passes, then this ranked vote is moot. If not, then yeah, it'll be tricky to find a way forward.
 
So the vote ended at 8/7 with DBgrow not voting but somewhat indicated they would be in favor of the Director proposal in the other thread ? Pretty much, yet, an other stalemate to me here.
Any proposal can pass. There's just still the same uncertainty as it depends on how highly people value their #1 choice. Assuming DBGrow and VBIF voted for Director, it'd be 8/8. Anton's vote would then push 'council' to 9 (eliminate his first option as it had lowest votes, go for his next eligible preference).

But then, as Niels said, Hashquark could have really had the most interesting vote if they put Director first. So it would have been nice if everyone voted, I guess.

That's why we pledged we'd support any outcome. If Director would have had the majority, we'd be pretty safe on that current proposal passing even if it's not perfect.
 
On behalf of Sphereon I’ll post a more extensive vision for the protocol in the next few days.

For now, we want to thank all the parties for getting this whole discussion going and all the efforts that they’ve put in so far.

From our point of view we believe it is super important to break the impasse and take several decisive actions.
We’ve seen first-hand how important it is in our dealings with other projects and companies to be able to make decisions and get things done quickly. As a commercial company Sphereon really needs this and we’re sure other companies that want to work with Factom require that as well.

We believe the best way to achieve this is through a Director model.

Not a Director that will just execute what he/she thinks is best, but a Director that will consult and work together with the various stakeholders and people like Mike, Vidale, Colin, Anton, Matt, Jason, Julian, Hinamatsuri and others, that will try to build consensus. But in the end will take a decision and move the protocol forward.
A Director that will not do everything himself but will “direct”: a Director that will delegate tasks to others. Others in the community, but also to professionals with more or specific knowledge about certain subjects.

We will remain a decentralized protocol with enough safeguards through the current ANO system, but – temporary – we need to do a lot of things in a short period of time to get this thing moving and turned around.
 
Last edited:
Top