!CzpXDOfqfMQmoJEPiE:matrix.org

TezosGovernance

289 Members
For discussing on-chain and off-chain governance of the Tezos ecosystem. See http://bit.ly/2rkSiUY for room info. Personal attacks and threats are not allowed. Be kind, nice and thoughtful. : )4 Servers

Load older messages


Timestamp Message
25 Nov 2018
15:53:43@breitwoman:matrix.orgbreitwoman In my limited experience, the Eth devs are usually personally delightful and I'm sure this was proposed with only the purest intentions. I get excited when I see motions like this in other projects, though, because it does tend to coincide with an increase in skepticism of developer concentration/power - which is a good attitude to have in an open source project. Having a decentralized protocol and a clear mechanism to compete for upgrades means never having to say you're sorry šŸ˜
26 Nov 2018
22:49:08@tezosaccelerator:matrix.orgtezosaccelerator joined the room.
29 Nov 2018
14:24:15@azulmarino3:matrix.orgazulmarinogovernance is a social experiment and even prior to governance being in place (voting hasn't started) we see a uncapitaned ship seemingly going nowhere. In other projects headed by one person or a commitee the current tech alone would have given Tezos a great start not only in the market but in the perception of developers. For now the idea of a decentralised entity finding its own destiny is failing. The wiser decision would have been not to have let Tezos falter, stumble blindly in the wild but to have set it free once voting and real governance began.
18:33:11@cousinit:matrix.orgcousinit azulmarino: are you saying there are no downsides to that approach, your dreamy description of more centralized control even if true would increase chances of regulatory/legal challenges moving forward. I am not suggesting that the path taken was best, but that there is no clearly better one without risks as well
30 Nov 2018
11:21:57@azulmarino3:matrix.orgazulmarino cousinit: I'm talking of guidence until governance is in place. I'm all for decentralisation it just seems in hindsight without leadership at such an early stage we perhaps lose traction with the greater crypto community.
3 Dec 2018
03:04:26@3rw4n_:matrix.org3rw4n azulmarino: I don't think I understand what you are saying, so please correct me: are you advocating to have a benevolent dictator that could deploy protocol changes arbitrarily or a meatspace leader that would do tech evangelism? What exactly do you mean by "governance" here?
03:05:10@3rw4n_:matrix.org3rw4nTo me it sounds like you are more talking about "leadership" than governance. Is that a fair representation of what you are saying?
11:09:19@aark:matrix.orgaarkShould there be a penalty(no payment, like with DASH masternodes) for bakers when they are not updating there nodes after a certain period?
15:52:27@Zero-Hour-Zulu:matrix.orgZero-Hour-ZuluI think, generally, we should, in governance, build incentives instead of compulsion and penalty. I think penalties tend to distort the economic calculus of people attempting to weigh cost/benefit tradeoffs. The recent rapid updates to the software has brought up the issue about what is a "mandatory" change, what is a true change to the protocol, and what is a mere patch, and should the bakers/delegates be "pushed" to update, or left alone. A patch is something exigent (and I don't think we should treat it with the same governance as deliberative protocol evolution, meaning that it should be reviewed and voted). Of course, a patch that changes some fundamental constants, even as an emergency action, may require some later governance review. How to get the majority of the bakers on board with particular changes (which some may disagree with), will be a challenge
16:17:15@azulmarino3:matrix.orgazulmarino
In reply to @3rw4n_:matrix.org
To me it sounds like you are more talking about "leadership" than governance. Is that a fair representation of what you are saying?
"benevolent dictator" perhaps not , but would at least liked to have seen a technical foundation steering the ship until governance is implemented , which i remind you atm it is not,
16:17:50@azulmarino3:matrix.orgazulmarinoImplemented codewise but not yet in force
16:19:28@azulmarino3:matrix.orgazulmarinoso yes, we lack leadership, will it be needed when we can vote ? no, that is where governance is useful and i support it. What governance do we have atm ?
23:34:27@3rw4n_:matrix.org3rw4n azulmarino: I think maybe you have your eyes set on the wrong places to assess the progress of the software. Peak at the Gitlab of the Tezos France team, there is a lot going on and they also have a vision of where they want to take the protocol (contingent on on-chain vote). The bottomline is that there are no one single owners of the codebase (even if at the moment the domain expertise is concentrated in a single team). You can work on some code and propose a hard-fork tomorrow if you so wish, anyone can. Or you can wait for the first voting cycle.
23:39:54@3rw4n_:matrix.org3rw4n Zero-Hour-Zulu: I agree that emergency software patches should not be treated the same as deliberate evolutions via protocol amendments. On the other hand, I think it's important to re-state two things: first, in its current form on-chain amendments are ill suited to carry on emergency updates (they weren't designed for this in mind) and second, these software patches are applied voluntarily by bakers. They could refuse to apply them and fork the software. I agree with you that we should think about a way to review these patches later on in a way that makes sure that 1/ the issue they address is solved durably (i.e not just hacking around) 2/ rewards the fast responder for their diligence 3/ doesn't impede or delay further protocol upgrades (right now 1 voting cycle leads to <= 1 protocol upgrade)
23:41:59@3rw4n_:matrix.org3rw4n Zero-Hour-Zulu: I am much more concerned in making sure that the mechanics/economics of on-chain governance are predictable enough so that it is a sustainable business for a company to tend to the network
23:43:17@3rw4n_:matrix.org3rw4nIn other words, can a qualified and motivated individual make a compelling case to raise enough capital to start a company doing core protocol development AND sustain that operation if their work provides value
23:55:10@Zero-Hour-Zulu:matrix.orgZero-Hour-Zulu 3rw4n: Well said. Puts me to quiet.
4 Dec 2018
00:28:20* @3rw4n_:matrix.org3rw4n blushes :)
05:55:54@shnam:matrix.orgsconeman changed their display name from shnam to sconeman.
05:57:20@shnam:matrix.orgsconeman set a profile picture.
08:59:22@azulmarino3:matrix.orgazulmarino 3rw4n: Yes, will look more at gitlab. thanks
5 Dec 2018
07:09:41@galene:matrix.orggalene joined the room.
8 Dec 2018
09:58:36@arturo_sanz:matrix.orgarturo_sanz joined the room.
9 Dec 2018
11:41:00@marco__:matrix.orgmarco | StackTezos.com changed their profile picture.
11:41:13@marco__:matrix.orgmarco | StackTezos.com changed their profile picture.
11:41:21@marco__:matrix.orgmarco | StackTezos.com changed their profile picture.
12 Dec 2018
00:07:36@forsetiT:matrix.orgForsetiTRedacted or Malformed Event
23:20:14@Reviken:matrix.orgRevikenĀ  changed their profile picture.
13 Dec 2018
16:50:49@titano:matrix.orgtitano joined the room.
14 Dec 2018
13:02:27@rooney:matrix.orgrooney joined the room.

There are no newer messages yet.


Back to Room List