| 11 Sep 2018 |
 richardred | defunding votes is not something I had considered, but I guess that could operate on the same principle. a new proposal is made which references an approved proposal and proposes stopping it | 22:59:21 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] making sure we get this right enough out of the box is important, we don't want to run this machine and have to take it offline | 23:03:32 |
 Haon | isn't it enough to reference you intent in the proposal title? | 23:05:54 |
| Haon | for example [SENTIMENT] proposal x; proposal X; [DEFUND] proposal x | 23:07:56 |
| richardred | for me, most of the blanks now are around what proposals will look like. It would help to have some solid examples of what a good proposal looks like, to envision better what the system will be dealing with | 23:08:58 |
| Haon | I've been telling folks for over a year that they can submit their ideas on Politeia, with the addition that it will be live soon (tm) | 23:10:31 |
| richardred | I like the idea of a "post-funding" status for a proposal, where there is space to record progress, milestones payments, and maintain dialogue with the community. | 23:11:28 |
| Haon | right now we have
- pre-voting
- active voting
- finished voting
- all proposals
| 23:15:37 |
| Haon | maybe that should become: pre-voting; active voting; post-voting; archived; all proposals ? | 23:16:47 |
| Haon | in the post-voting section the proposal is still active because it requires payments / work deliverables | 23:17:52 |
| Haon | only once a proposal is truly "done" it moves to the archive | 23:18:12 |
| Haon | you can then submit a [DEFUND] proposal to try and stop payments to proposals that are in the post-voting section | 23:19:53 |
| Haon | if the [DEFUND] passes, both proposals will be archived | 23:20:45 |
| richardred | maybe "proposals" are better reserved for decision-making, and funded proposals should live in a different content type, like "projects". The requirements for them seem quite different, proposals are about defining a plan, but after funding the information required is more like progress updates and review/payment information. I don't know, it is a difficult call to decide when more design in advance will help vs over-complicate things, whether some observation of the thing in action is what's needed vs trying to prevent it from being a mess in avoidable ways | 23:25:36 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/karamble] its allways good to use tags for "related props" if that makes sense in that case. so the props could be not directly hirarchicaly linked, but more topic related linked | 23:30:05 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/karamble] thats how the "you could also like the following article" function on websites work, its using tags != links | 23:33:26 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] @ what do you imagine to be a realistic timeframe to get things right? | 23:47:38 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] we can bikeshed over many details, but at some point we have to release | 23:48:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] you nagging about release is not helpful | 23:57:08 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] that's what i think | 23:57:14 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] *are we there yet???* | 23:58:08 |
| 12 Sep 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] you're right 😏 | 00:02:11 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] Separate proposals with linkages makes the most sense to me. It seems like it would be easier to change directions in the future with this initial structure. | 00:14:25 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/JKT] I'm in agreement with Richard when he says "maybe "proposals" are better reserved for decision-making, and funded proposals should live in a different content type" & "whether some observation of the thing in action is what's needed vs trying to prevent it from being a mess in avoidable ways." Every Decred owner I have talked to this year is extremely interested in seeing how Pi will evolve once it goes live. I think we all understand that it will need some tweaking as we go. | 01:38:41 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/thedecreddigest] I can understand why we might want to add sentiment votes and defund votes too, but I’m worried we might overload stakeholders with decisions which could lead to voting fatigue and lower participation levels. In an ideal world PoS voting rewards would be reduced for every proposal a stakeholder didn’t vote on, but without that, funding/defunding votes are the only types of votes that have some sort of incentive (e.g. someone is going to spend the savings in my jointly held pot). IMO because there’s no real consequences for a sentiment vote (it can’t be enforced and it doesn’t lead to any direct action) there is less incentive to vote. As long as we can fund (in arrears), then in the first instance I’d personally just like to see what the volume of proposals coming in is like, and what participation levels are like for funding votes before adding other types of vote. As JKT said, Pi isn’t going to be perfect straight away - everyone understands that it will need some tweaking - so we can take a iterative and incremental approach to developing it (as the project has always done). | 06:50:34 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jonkho] I agree. Having more vote types right now seems overbaked. Especially when we haven't done any learning yet from the existing system | 06:56:13 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] the purpose of inquiring about this here is that once the system is live, it's going to be pretty much a showstopper to do stuff like "let's put this proposal on hold until feature X is added" | 12:00:27 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] i think we can get away with what we have right now. still testing a few parts | 12:01:14 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] Regarding pi admins. I really think we should eliminate the perception of conflict of interest by requiring them to be completely independent of pi proposals and contract work other than the admin scope of work. | 14:01:04 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] They could perform other admin type duties outside of pi also. | 14:01:49 |
