To anyone thinking of investing in or working with Factom

Ah yes, a democratically ratified change, which was re-ratified for good measure. This surely is a terrible system.

I can't wait for the pandemic to be over and for school to be back in session, so the children will keep off the internet.
I like how u guys change your posting requirements after you do not like what I post so I have to register new account. More proof of not being professional.

My search shows you need 60% of block validaters to change governance but less than 60% approved the second vote.

I do agree with you that there are 2 problems here, which i don't think would have happened with the guides being part of the standing parties.

But the way you are framing this, seems like you have an ax to grind. My take is these are growing pains, when moving to the next phase of governance. I am not saying it is okay, but clearly it is happening all out in the open en with a majority vote. So what you are suggesting is not in line with what has happened past 2 years
My search shows you need 60% of block validaters to change governance but less than 60% approved the second vote.
Sorry, no.

You refer to Doc 002 - 2.4.2, which states: "The affirmative vote by three-fifths (3/5) of the ANOs shall be required in order for the document ratification process to be successful."

The second poll was not a document ratification process. It was a simple poll to inform the community about the mishap and present options for rectifying it, which could have LED to a new document ratification process requiring a 60% vote.

It's important to understand the difference.
There is however something to be said that whenever a ratification requires 60 percent and an uneforseen update kreeps in (not mentioned in the summary) and you do acknowledge as a protocol that has gone wrong, that the vote about whether to keep it as is or make a change also requires the same 60 percent. I think the prudent thing would be to mark questions like these as major discussions, so nobody can claim or suggest the vote was not according to governance
i don't remember (could be my memory), that we ever had a vote for something that directly impacts governance docs only needing a simple majority. If that is the case, this is a deviation. Not as bad as portrayed by topicstarter, but could indeed raise some eyebrows
I think the prudent thing would be to mark questions like these as major discussions
It was a major discussion. Parties voted on a motion to end discussion early. A majority of ANOs (12 out of 23) voted in favor of keeping the document as is.

What's great about Factom governance is that any ANO is still able to start a new document ratification regardless.
Okay memory failed me therr. However the remaining part stands. Basically the document with the additional change was ratified. So a vote to revert should be seen as a ratification as well.

Topicstarter obviously has pretty intimate knowledge and an axe to grind. An outsider would never bring this up. But i think we should learn from this, because i am with TS that this should have been 60 percent. Nothing has changed so it is a non discussion in the end, but still good to be aware of the optics.
Ratification of version Y which contains additions which weren't spotted and which was ratified by at least 60 percent and which wasn't breaking any Ratification process rules means that version stands from that moment on. Want to go back to the previous version that really becomes a next version Z even if the text would be exactly the same as version X
A change was recently snuck into factom governance and the block validators, when told about this, decided to just let it stand. See:

Nobody should invest in or do business with such a group of people. Who knows what they would sneak in at some other point.
All groups of people make mistakes. This community acknowledges them and discussed them, and moves on. You are free to associate with whom you wish, so I'm not going to take that away from you. But I have found this community rather honest and straightforward, even when things get complex and opinions get heated. In the end, nobody is trying to take advantage of anybody else.

And of course, you're free to disagree.
It is however interesting to see multiple ANO affiliated people not recognizing the error that was made with the 2nd poll.

Simple question. How would the ratification have progressed and potentially reverted if everything already happened on chain?

The solution here should not be a majority poll, but a ratification clearly stating that it was to rectify/remove the oversight. If ANOs voted 60 percent in favor it would mean it had to be reverted, if people voted against they would be okay with it. If you look at the outcome of current vote and if the outcome would be the same in case of ratification it would mean we had to revert.

Funny people associated with ANOs cannot see the problem with the poll
a mistake I highly doubt would have been made if governance was in order.

What is happening is that several ANOs get into a fight with someone that is pointing it out. His/her tone is wrong obviously, but all that happens is ANOs getting into a fight with the person and forming a front, whilst there is truth to the underlying errors