Proposal to require ANOs to "check in" every two weeks during the global pandemic

Public: Only invited members may reply

  • Viewed Bedrock Solutions Bedrock Solutions Blockchain Innovation Foundation Blockchain Innovation Foundation Canonical Ledgers Canonical Ledgers Consensus Networks Consensus Networks Cube3 Cube3 DBGrow DBGrow David Chapman 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 PrestigeIT PrestigeIT RewardChain RewardChain Stamp-IT Stamp-IT The Factoid Authority The Factoid Authority VBIF VBIF
  • Not Viewed Blockrock Mining Blockrock Mining CryptoLogic CryptoLogic

Should ANOs be required to "Check In" every two weeks during the pandemic?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes DBGrow DBGrow Federate This Federate This VBIF VBIF

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
We need to act proactively to ensure the Factom Protocol weathers the current health and economic issues faced by the world. We must reduce risk and plan for the worst while hoping for the best. I propose the following if this measure passes with 60%:

1. Every two weeks, a thread is created that invites each ANO.

2. Within 5 days, every ANO is required to check in any give a one or two sentence update along the lines of:

"Factomize is fully operational and our server admin is in good health with good internet connectivity".

Or

"Factomize has not heard from its server admin in 7 days. We will update the Standing Parties when we hear more"

3. Failure to provide an update in five days should result in every other ANO removing Standing for that ANO to begin the 90 day removal process. If the ANO comes back and updates the Standing Parties, Standing can be restored.

This is not a Major Discussion as that requires inviting Guides. I will create a poll for ANOs after 8 days (on the 22nd) of discussion as if this were a Major Discussion.

Thank you.
 
Is it really necessary ?

It is the duty of all ANOs to have a sys admin in available, if their sys admin fails to do their duty, we already have the promotion/demotion system in place to remove standing if necessary.

I'm personally not a fan of rigid policy like this one when we already have a system in place which should already be taking care of this potential problem?
 
It's about being proactive. It's quite possible for an ANO's critical personnel to be unavailable for months before we know about it. And we don't want to find out the hard way.

X ANOs being unable to respond to a stall because their server admin are unavailable would potentially be catastrophic.
 

David Kuiper

Bedrock Solutions
It's about being proactive. It's quite possible for an ANO's critical personnel to be unavailable for months before we know about it. And we don't want to find out the hard way.
If an ANO wants to hide the fact that their critical personnel is missing/unavailable, they can do so with or without these check-ins. I don't think this solves the problem. The real issue is convincing ANOs who are in this situation to be honest about it.

If an ANO says "Our server admin(s) have come down with Coronavirus and we risk being unable to meet our basic responsibilities as an ANO for the next 2+ weeks", how do we handle that? Do we expect them to immediately resign? Do we give them an opportunity to "pause" their server until better times? I think answering these questions beforehand would make this proposed process more effective.
 
Hi David,

I agree that we should be proactive abut the risks the protocol faces because of Coronavirus or indeed any other serious challenge. However I think that removal of standing may be too draconian.

What is to stop us having a system whereby we establish whether ANOs are functional on say a two weekly basis and post this as a measure all ANOs can see? That way we create peer pressure for ANOs to report and be functional. Then the first step for non-conformance should be to make contact and establish what the issue is. Should it continue then we can resort to removing standing.
 
I feel this requirement is unnecessary. Even if this were to happen (an admin temporarily out) we've already been restarting the network with some ANOs missing on previous stalls. So unless 5+ admins are simulataineously out and there's a stall, I don't think there's an issue. I also assume if an admin was temporarily out, ANOs would be forthcoming with this information and would receive support from other ANOs in the event of a stall (meaning help with instructions on exactly what to do), etc.
 
I'm not sure the check-ins are necessary either but I like the sentiment.

Maybe an alternative approach could be some kind of statement towards ANOs. Something along the lines of...

"We hope everyone is able to keep safe with the recent global pandemic. We remind you that it's vital to the health of the Factom blockchain that your ANO is able to handle administration tasks 24/7. If your ANO runs into difficulties with being able to provide this level of administration, please reach out and ask for support. This can be done either via Factomize or Discord."
 
Thank you David for taking the time to think and propose new ideas to the community.

I do not think this proposal is practical nor yield much benefits. We have ANOs who haven't given updates for 6 months+ and haven't be even remotely sanctioned for not doing so. So I completely doubt the measure you are proposing would be enforced. And as other mentioned, one can just lie in their report. Ultimately what matters is that people show up when servers need to be updated or restarted, failure to do so should result in loss of standing.
 
Thank you David for taking the time to think and propose new ideas to the community.

I do not think this proposal is practical nor yield much benefits. We have ANOs who haven't given updates for 6 months+ and haven't be even remotely sanctioned for not doing so. So I completely doubt the measure you are proposing would be enforced. And as other mentioned, one can just lie in their report. Ultimately what matters is that people show up when servers need to be updated or restarted, failure to do so should result in loss of standing.
Thanks for this Paul,

I agree with your concern that some ANOs may not notify (or possibly be able to notify) however without something in place it will be like "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". Given the real risk posed by the pandemic it would seem sensible to try to put something in place to improve our confidence in operating the protocol.

One further thought is that this post relates purely to node operations whereas other activities like grant rounds, factomd changes and even voting etc may also be affected.
 

Beta@HashQuark

HashQuark
Thank you David to bring this world issue to our attention currently which also remind all of us to keep safe! In terms of specific plan you mentioned above, i also kindly suggest to loss standing instead of just to remove standing if sys admin fails to do their duty which also seems not hard to execute. Last but not least, let's cross our finger and hope we can get through this coronavirus together very soon. 💪
 
Top