| 22 Aug 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jz] Need more sweat and the monkey dance... | 22:34:42 |
| 23 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] glad i could unify everyone against my apparent bad idea 😀. I realize folks like myself won't be equipped to assess the technical ability of contractors, but I assumed most stakeholders would defer to the "technical recommendation". i also assumed initial proposals by new contractors were going to have low $ caps like some of the discussion that has been ongoing. going forward, we'll continue to be faced with decisions like this one where the easy and obvious route will be to keep a centralized decision making structure. imo it may be worth the downside to strategically delegate out the formal decision to the stakeholders in order to push decentralization forward and build the overall network intelligence and confidence. doing this will add some systemic risk, but with the right controls i think the risk can be mitigated. | 00:18:05 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/ryanzim] The basic thing is, non-technical people generally fall for people that use big words. Your average non-technical person will think "quantum AI with bilateral atom feeds, helping to reduce transaction fees" sounds good. | 01:18:44 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] :take_my_money: | 01:26:52 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/solar] Need balance between evil council technocracy and masses voting for the slickest salesman. | 01:34:22 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] if stakeholders want to vote for wacky projects, that's fine. rolling the dice with unproven and/or unvetted contractors is a far bigger risk | 01:46:01 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] forcing contractors to participate in a popularity contest will lead to bad decisions | 02:05:59 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] the concerns are valid. although imo in the long-run we are better off mitigating the potential for bad stakeholder decisions with constraints rather than saying, "we don't trust the stakeholders". the entire system is premised on stakeholders making decisions in their own best interest. i believe the majority of voters will seek out the resources to inform themselves appropriately enough to weigh in on votes. | 02:23:56 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] fully acknowledge i might be naive on this. | 02:24:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/raedah] Deferring to a skin in the game stakeholder group or an expert class are both types of contests, just a matter of how the judges/jury are being selected. It could be that the stakeholders approve the experts. The devil will most likely be in the details here, but to @ point, the long term success of Decred depends on decentralization for its evolution. Voters already control the chain, so the future looks secured. | 02:24:20 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] i think a compromise would be the stakeholders passing a confirmation vote on those representing the network on the technical screening. "we stakeholders acknowledge the need for technical expertise in screening potential contractors and delegate the screening of potential contractors to persons a, b, c." | 02:28:28 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/decoy] i think a compromise would be the stakeholders passing a confirmation vote on those representing the network on the technical screening. "we stakeholders acknowledge the need for technical expertise in screening potential contractors and delegate that effort to persons a, b, c." (edited) | 02:31:31 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Personally, I think what is most important is to inculcate a solid culture from the beginning so that as it becomes more decentralized, contractors then can teach other the appropriate values and self regulate for the most part. I don't say that as a matter of not trusting the stakeholders, as, I think that, on the whole, a large group of stakeholders can be better decisions about the big ticket items, but therein lies the key -- the big ticket items. Stakeholders, if forced to constantly deal with minutiae that should be handled internally by various organizations are simply going to get burnt out and largely stop participating. | 04:53:30 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/davecgh] Personally, I think what is most important is to inculcate a solid culture from the beginning so that as it becomes more decentralized, contractors then can teach other the appropriate values and self regulate for the most part. I don't say that as a matter of not trusting the stakeholders, as, I think that, on the whole, a large group of stakeholders can make better decisions about the big ticket items, but therein lies the key -- the big ticket items. Stakeholders, if forced to constantly deal with minutiae that should be handled internally by various organizations are simply going to get burnt out and largely stop participating. (edited) | 04:54:24 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] Great discussion. I look at recruitment from the pov that there's a system in place already, to me it seems to work well (but that's something to gauge consensus on too). In the phased transition to Dae, I don't see any reason to throw out processes that are working well for the sake of something that sounds more decentralized or autonomous, for now at least. Pi voting to establish a mandate for working on new projects is the big next step. I would say that will also have the power to overrule whatevers happening in some subdomain or council, but hopefully we won't see that in practice for quite some time. | 08:57:11 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] When politeia launches we are not starting with a blank slate, it's an opportunity to start tinkering with and improving/decentralizing the current approach, as well as putting bigger questions about the projects direction and spending to a vote. | 09:00:28 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] I expect some bigger stakeholders to have their own advising experts | 11:31:37 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/bee] we can use "voting fatigue" as a term to describe the unwanted outcome when stakeholders are exhausted by minutiae (similar to security fatigue or password fatigue) | 11:38:27 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] Nice, I like "voting fatigue" | 11:57:22 |
| 25 Aug 2018 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] https://twitter.com/paul_btc/status/1033374850507780103 | 15:44:02 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Haon] Twitter thread 🍿 | 15:44:19 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] nice, that's a great thread | 18:36:36 |
| 26 Aug 2018 |
|  Haon changed their profile picture. | 08:50:25 |
| Haon | Would it make sense to have a "let's move to matrix" proposal? | 08:55:36 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/hypernoob] I want my exploding parrot REEEEEE | 09:30:26 |
| Haon | 🦃🐔🐓🐤🐥🐦🐧🕊️🦅🦆🦉 | 12:04:04 |
| Haon | That's the birds we have here | 12:05:16 |
| Haon | 🐣 | 12:05:40 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] lol | 13:03:54 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/Richard-Red] depends how the proposal is worded I'd say, something like "paid contributors should be on Matrix" has been mentioned before and that makes some sense, but "everyone must move to matrix" wouldn't work | 13:06:12 |
