| 12 Sep 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Duckie] Would be nice if they ran for some kind of ellection, and that it they had it for some period. | 14:06:17 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Duckie] Atleast people should know their intentions and background? | 14:07:17 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/lukebp] I don’t really see there being a conflict of interest with Pi admins. Their job is to make sure that proposals adhere to whatever minimum proposal guidelines we set. They’re not actually making any type of judgement on the merits of the proposal. | 14:10:54 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the point of pi is to have both users and admins be cryptographically accountable | 14:30:44 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] this way, even if someone does have a conflict of interest, it is demonstrable and the corresponding admin can be held accountable | 14:31:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] elected officials are precisely what we're engineering out with decred, so i'll fight to the bitter end to prevent that | 14:32:19 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] if an admin is doing sketchy stuff, it's demonstrable, and they will be removed if they don't adhere to the project policies on proposals | 14:32:44 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Duckie] How would you remove one ? | 14:33:01 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] just like everything else, there is a centralized way to do things, which can ultimately be decentralized | 14:33:39 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] we're building a contractor mgmt system as another governance layer beyond pi | 14:34:29 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] as an example of how that process could work: admin1 does sketchy stuff, admin2-4 notice the sketchy behavior and try to address it with admin1, admin1 refuses to adjust their behavior, admin2 proposes that admin1 be removed from their role on the contractor mgmt system, admin3 and admin4 support the removal, other contractors can see the proposal to remove, contractors vote on the removal, if admin1 wants to escalate, they can demand stakeholders vote on the removal | 14:36:33 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] in general, stakeholders should not be dealing with staffing matters | 14:37:18 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] i was concerned then i finished reading....."if admin1 wants to escalate, they can demand stakeholders vote on the removal." Good strategy👍. | 14:52:37 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] Throwing this idea out for longer term consideration. At the end of each of each contract or semi-annually we require the contractor to submit a short admin evaluation. After the sample set is large enough, if an admin's rating are below an established thresh-hold a confidence vote would automatically be triggered by the stakeholders. Even if a vote never has to occur this feedback will be beneficial to continually improving our admin functions. | 14:56:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] Throwing this idea out for longer term consideration. At the end of each contract or semi-annually we require the contractor to submit a short admin evaluation. After the sample set is large enough, if an admin's rating are below an established thresh-hold a confidence vote would automatically be triggered by the stakeholders. Even if a vote never has to occur this feedback will be beneficial to continually improving our admin functions. (edited) | 14:56:28 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] Throwing this idea out for longer term consideration. At the end of each contract or semi-annually we require the contractor to submit a short admin evaluation. After the sample set is large enough, if an admin's avg ratings are below an established thresh-hold a confidence vote would automatically be triggered by the stakeholders. Even if a vote never has to occur this feedback will be beneficial to continually improving our admin functions. (edited) | 14:56:50 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] stakeholders should only get involved in contractor issues if things get super contentious. a lot of contractors would rather quietly leave than make a ruckus and end up getting voted out by stakeholders. imagine how bad that would look from an employment perspective if you got booted by the other contractors, only to protest and then be formally voted out by the stakeholders | 15:01:47 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] it would literally be an indelible mark on your career since pi records won't go away | 15:02:20 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/ryanzim] I don't see why we need a formal proposal linking system; the body of future proposals can simply link to the previous proposals | 15:02:54 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] that's a fair point, perhaps having a footnotes/links section in proposals would make sense | 15:04:34 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/ryanzim] The whole discussion about needing something more complex reminds me of the argument back when Tim Berners-Lee came up with HTML, and people said it would never work, with its one-way linking system that had the possibility of broken links. Well, obviously, it worked. | 15:25:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/ryanzim] We could also potentially make rules about specific linking conventions, and have the admins enforce them. (e.g. links must be at the bottom) | 15:26:10 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] over time, i expect we'll have a fully standardized proposal format, but we're not there just yet | 15:43:20 |
 Haon | yeah a standard format will likely take some trial & error | 16:08:33 |
| Haon | we will get there though 😎 | 16:08:57 |
|  jy-p joined the room. | 20:15:39 |
| 13 Sep 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/joshuam] How would this apply to pseudonymous contributors? | 09:02:07 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/joshuam] @ I like the idea of submitting annual/bi-annual contractor reports. Moreso from the angle of stakeholders being able to gain a comprehensive historical context of a particular contractors contributions when it comes time to renew a proposal/submit a new one. | 09:07:53 |
| Haon | personally I'm not very keen on documenting all my work | 11:42:32 |
| Haon | however, if that's what the people want... 😄 | 11:42:51 |
